Authenticity and Experience Quality Among Visitors
at a Historic Village
William Robert Harvey
Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the
Degree of
Master of Science
In
Forestry
Joseph W. Roggenbuck, Chair
R. Bruce Hull
Kevin Larkin
February 6, 2004
Blacksburg, VA
Keywords:
Authenticity, Importance/Performance, Knowledge, Crowding,
Conflict, Satisfaction
Authenticity and Experience Quality Among Visitors
at a Historic Village
William Robert Harvey
(ABSTRACT)
This study examines the concept of authenticity as applied at Appomattox Court
House National Historical Park (ACHNHP). Based on past theoretical research, a
functional definition of authenticity is used in an effort to test whether or not visitors to
the park come for reasons relating to authenticity. Further analyses are used to determine
the relative importance of authenticity to other motivational reasons for visiting the park,
and how the level of authenticity experienced at ACHNHP affects how respondents rate
the importance and performance of many park setting attributes. Using motivation for
authenticity and importance/performance variables as predictors, visitor knowledge,
perceptions of crowding and conflict, and overall satisfaction are assessed. The results
suggest that while authenticity is important for park visitors, experience outputs are
difficult to forecast because of correlation among independent variables and homogeneity
of park visitors. Recommendations are made for future researchers when examining the
concept of authenticity.
Table of Contents
List of Figures and Tables ............................................................................................... v
Introduction.....................................................................................................................1
Description of the Historical Village and Park..............................................................1
National Park Service Goals and the General Management Plan...................................1
Park Visitors and Activities..........................................................................................2
Living History..............................................................................................................2
The Problem of Authenticity ........................................................................................4
Study Objectives .............................................................................................................5
Literature Review............................................................................................................6
The Meaning of Authenticity........................................................................................6
Objective Authenticity ..............................................................................................6
Constructive Authenticity .........................................................................................8
Subjective Authenticity.............................................................................................9
Summary of Authenticity ..........................................................................................9
Role of Authenticity in Tourism Research.................................................................. 10
The Leisure Experience Process ................................................................................. 11
Input .......................................................................................................................12
Recreation Experience Preferences (REP)............................................................ 13
On-Site Engagement ...............................................................................................15
Output..................................................................................................................... 17
Model of the ACHNHP Leisure Experience ............................................................... 18
Methods ........................................................................................................................ 20
Study Population........................................................................................................20
Cross-Sectional Survey and Sampling Design ............................................................ 20
Field Experiment........................................................................................................20
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................21
Data Analysis.............................................................................................................22
Operationalizing Study Variables............................................................................22
Assessing Relationships among Variables ............................................................... 23
Results ..........................................................................................................................24
iii
Response Rate............................................................................................................ 24
Objective 1: To Develop a Functional Definition of Authenticity .............................. 24
Objective 2: To identify and discuss the reasons or motivations for coming to the park,
and to determine whether achieving an authentic experience is an important reason for
visiting the park among tourists.................................................................................. 25
Importance of Authenticity Relative to Other Motives ............................................25
Objective 3: To determine the relationship between the desire for authenticity and
satisfaction with site and program conditions and overall quality of the visitor
experience. .................................................................................................................28
Experimental Design: A Noise Threat to Authenticity............................................28
Survey Results: Test of Study Model ..................................................................... 29
Knowledge..............................................................................................................35
Crowding................................................................................................................37
Conflict...................................................................................................................38
Overall Satisfaction of the Park Experience.............................................................40
Summary of Results ................................................................................................... 41
Discussion and Conclusion............................................................................................43
Study Findings ...........................................................................................................43
Implications for Management.....................................................................................44
Implications for Future Research................................................................................45
The Study Model ....................................................................................................45
Validity Measures of the Constructs........................................................................ 45
Visitor Homogeneity............................................................................................ 45
Authenticity......................................................................................................... 46
Other Study Constructs........................................................................................46
Research Design .....................................................................................................47
Expanding the Model ..............................................................................................48
Conclusion.................................................................................................................49
References..................................................................................................................... 51
Appendix A: On-site Contact Sheet .............................................................................. 55
Appendix B: Mail-back survey .....................................................................................59
iv
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Simplified Model of Leisure Experiences…………………………………………….12
Figure 2: Operationalized Model of Leisure Experiences………………………………………19
Table 1: Sampling days by month and day of the week………………………………..……….20
Table 2: Dates of intrusions with total number of study participants receiving
Intrusion………………………………………………………………………….………21
Table 3: Motivations to visit ACHNHP………………………………………………………...25
Table 4: Results of factor analysis on motivations to visit ACHNHP………………….……....26
Table 5: Distribution of Learning/Authenticity scores computed for park visitors………….…27
Table 6: Comparison of motivation for authenticity versus other visit motivations……….…..28
Table 7: Number of visitors who received mechanical noise treatment…………………….….28
Table 8: Distribution of visitors’ rating of the use of mechanized equipment in the
historic village and too much noise in the historic village as a conflict…………….…..29
Table 9: T-Test of treatment effect on the “use of mechanized equipment in the
village” conflict variable………………………………………………………….….….29
Table 10: T-Test of treatment effect on the “too much noise in the historic village”
conflict variable………………………………………………………………….….…..29
Table 11: Results of factor analysis of setting importance attributes…………………….……30
Table 12: Correlation comparison between the motivation for authenticity and
setting importance factor index scores…………………………………………………32
Table 13: Results of factor analysis of setting performance items………………………….…33
Table 14: Regression analyses for park attribute performance scores by mechanical
noise treatment, authentic motivation, and park attribute importance
scores…………………………………………………………………………………..35
Table 15: Ten knowledge questions with percent of visitors answering correctly…………....36
Table 16: Frequency of respondents’ scores on the knowledge quiz………………………….36
Table 17: Test of stepwise regression analysis of the relationship between predictor
variables (authentic motivation, treatment (Y/N), six importance setting
factor variables, six performance setting factor variables) and scores on
the knowledge quiz…………………………………………………………………....37
Table 18: Visitors’ perceptions of crowding at ACHNHP…………………………………....37
v
Table 19: Test of the stepwise regression analysis between the predictor variables
(motivation for authenticity, treatment, six setting importance factor variables,
six setting performance factor variables) and perceptions of crowding……………38
Table 20: Test of the regression analysis between the predictor variables (motivation
for authenticity, treatment (Y/N)) and conflict with the use of mechanized
equipment in the historic village……………………………………………………38
Table 21: Test of the regression analysis between the predictor variables
(treatment (Y/N), motivation for authenticity) and conflict due to too much
noise in the historic village………………………………………………………….39
Table 22: Respondents who felt conflict with other uses or users while at the park…….…39
Table 23: Test of the stepwise regression analysis between the predictor variables
(treatment (Y/N), motivation for authenticity, six setting importance factor
variables, six setting performance factor variables) and feelings of conflict
with other uses or users……………………………………………………………..39
Table 24: Visitors’ ratings of their park experience…………………………………….….40
Table 25: Test of the stepwise regression analysis between the predictor variables
(treatment (Y/N), motivation for authenticity, six setting importance factor
variables, six setting performance factor variables) and overall satisfaction
of the experience……………………………………………………………………40
vi
Introduction
In 1935 the U.S. Congress designated Appomattox Court House as a national monument,
a unit of the national park system. In April of 1954, Congress gave the park greater status by
naming it the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park (ACHNHP). The park
commemorates the surrender of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia by General Robert
E. Lee to Union General Ulysses S. Grant, essentially ending the Civil War. More specifically,
ACHNHP was established in order to preserve in perpetuity the village of Appomattox Court
House where the surrender occurred, and to interpret for the general public the important
surrender events and story.
Description of the Historical Village and Park
Today the park contains over 1,740 acres of rolling hills in central Virginia, and includes
28 restored and reconstructed buildings that were present at the time of the surrender. Most of
the historic structures are in the main village in the center of the park. One of these restored
structures is the McLean House, the home where Lee and Grant convened in April 1865 to
discuss and sign the terms of surrender. Within the park boundaries are also visitor facilities,
maintenance buildings, and administrative facilities. There is a walking trail that leads visitors
through fields and forests around the village and through various sites associated with the 1865
surrender. A highway bisects the park’s acreage, allowing for views of the historical landscape
from the road and access to interpretive sites within and outside the main village area. Nearly all
of the park’s acreage outside the main village is occupied by farm fields and forest.
National Park Service Goals and the General Management Plan
Preserving the park’s resources is a top priority for park managers at ACHNHP.
However, the park has a visitor management mandate as well; in other words, the park must
provide services for the visiting public. The purpose of the park is to “further public
understanding of the specific historic events that occurred here, and to promote public enjoyment
of the preserved environment” (National Park Service, 1977). The park’s management goals are
threefold: (1) protect and conserve the cultural features and landscape qualities of the 1865
scene as it existed at the time of the surrender of General Lee’s army; (2) preserve/enhance the
setting so that visitors can feel the physical and emotional realities of the events that occurred
there; and (3) interpret the events and the story of the surrender for the enjoyment,
understanding, and appreciation by the visiting public. The 1977 General Management Plan
(GMP) for the park goes on to clarify these objectives. Common phrases used include protecting
the “inherent qualities of the resource, no intrusions upon the historic setting,” and preserving the
“village area to its 1865 setting as far as the horizon.” The terrain and vegetation in and around
the park is to be maintained for 1865 integrity. The management plan makes it clear that the
retention of open fields surrounding the village is very important to the park story and its
visualization. Also, the GMP states that it is essential “to preserve visual isolation of the old
village from 20th century intrusions” and to make the park “free of modern visual and auditory
intrusions.” Although the GMP does not use the word “authenticity,” its language implies that
the National Park Service (NPS) needs to maintain a scene and setting which are as close as
possible to that which existed in April 1865.
1
The GMP also states that the village should be a place of peace and reconciliation, a
place where a divided nation began efforts to reunite. In the eyes of the NPS, protecting and
restoring the village to its 1865 character and memorializing events that occurred there are
important for today’s visitors and for posterity. The NPS also believes that a historically
accurate scene and situation will foster visitor interest and enjoyment and enrich the historical
experience.
Park Visitors and Activities
Today, the park receives about 200,000 visitors a year. This number has declined slightly
over the past several years. The typical visitor is white, is around 50 years of age, and is
educated and fairly wealthy. Most come to the park in two-person groups without children.
Visitors come from all over the country, but about a quarter come from the state of Virginia
itself. There are also a large number of overseas visitors, mostly from the United Kingdom. The
geographically diverse origins of the park’s visitors challenge park managers to provide quality
experiences for a wide range of people.
Upon arriving at the park, most visitors walk up the entry path, enter the historical
village, and visit the Appomattox courthouse. This also happens to be where the visitor center is
located, and people are encouraged to start their visit there. Here, a uniformed ranger greets
them and orients them to the park. Typically, activities in the visitor center include watching a
slide show about the park story, viewing exhibits and artifacts from the 1865 period, and perhaps
asking park personnel about the park. For the most part, experiencing the rest of the park
involves a self-guided tour of the grounds and the historic buildings and homes. Activities that
seem to be a favorite among visitors are first-person living history portrayals (from both the
Union and Confederate viewpoints) in which an actor plays the part of a Civil War soldier and
gives a talk to whomever desires to listen. There are also periodic interpretive tours of the
village, interpretive talks in the McLean House, and audio programs at key locations in the park.
A handful of tourists hike the six-mile trail around the park and visit important historical sites
related to the final battle and surrender outside of the main village.
When considering the park resources and the activities that take place in the park, both
the managers and the visitors appear to be striving for something that might be called
authenticity. A section of the 1977 GMP stresses that, at the park, one may step back in history.
Furthermore, it states that interpretation is a key in providing answers concerning the park story
(National Park Service, 1977). This paper will examine the role of authenticity in the leisure
experience at ACHNHP.
Living History
Living history is one activity specifically designed to transport people back to a previous
time; the uniforms and setting are carefully constructed and fabricated by the performer to create
a feel of the past. Authenticity is a key component of today’s reenactments and living history
portrayals. Uniforms, caps, and even underwear are selected for authenticity. Since the 1970’s,
living history has been on the rise (Janiskee, 1996). This has coincided with the increased
demand of tourists for structured recreational activities that are high in entertainment value. In
fact, while tourists will often visit a historical park only once, they will tend to come back to a
2
place multiple times for living history alone (Janiskee, 1996). Because of this, living history can
be invaluable to managers who wish to encourage or increase visitation.
The “soldiers” or performers at ACHNHP ultimately wish to shape and enhance the
experience for the park visitor. The historical scene, with its structures and landscape, is there to
be found by the visitor; the living history characters add a subjective element, an interpretation of
the history of the place. The following is a quote from Freeman Tilden concerning the
interpretation of heritage places:
“In most of such places the visitor is exposed, if he chooses, to a kind of elective
education that is superior in some respects to the classroom, for here he meets the Thing Itself—
whether it be a wonder of Nature’s work, or the act or work of Man (Tilden, 1957).”
This statement from Tilden sheds some light on living history. The real objects, the
buildings, artifacts, and setting of a park are very powerful on their own (Uzzell, 1998). By
adding living history, however, the experience can be enhanced. It is the role of interpretation to
promote encounters with real objects and experiences (Uzzell, 1998). The desired outcome of
living history is to encourage visitors to learn more and dig deeper, as well as learn from the
performance itself. At many heritage sites, ACHNHP included, visitors cannot be assumed to
understand the significance and meaning of the objects and the places by themselves (Uzzell,
1998). Interpretive programs like living history can help visitors experience the park and learn
about the park story.
Adding to the inherent value of the park is the simple fact that the events of April 1865
actually occurred on the park grounds, and most of the buildings from that era are intact, either
through restoration or reconstruction. This allows for a more accurate, authentic image of the
heritage site (Ehrentraut, 1993). Had the courthouse or McLean House been rebuilt or restored
elsewhere, the meanings associated with the countryside surrounding the area would be
substantially lessened from a historical standpoint. Simply put, the park existing on the original
hallowed grounds confers a sense of authenticity (Halewood and Hannam, 2001). The fields and
forests in and around the park add to the sense of place that may be achieved by visitors to
ACHNHP.
The landscape of the park, the restored scene, and the associated interpretive aspects are
presented to help enhance the visitor experience. Park managers and living history performers
go to great lengths to produce a 1865 scene. However, achieving authentic living history is a
difficult task. For one, it requires skilled interpreters to tell an accurate story. To achieve the
intended impression, this usually requires a great deal of rehearsal and practice (Edensor, 2000).
The setting must be authentic as well; without the backdrop of an authentic landscape, the living
history would likely be considerably less effective. Furthermore, it would seem that the
authentic situation could be easily tarnished by visitors and outside influences, and possibly
management itself. Mechanical noise, cellular phones, and visual intrusions are examples of
outside influences that could negatively affect the historical scene and living history programs.
Also, there will always need to be monitoring of the living history performance by co-workers
and tourists (Edensor, 2000).
3
The Problem of Authenticity
Authenticity is thus a common ideal for historical parks and programs. But the question
needs to be asked: What is authenticity? Does authenticity shape the tourist experience in the
way that park managers and interpreters believe? For example, does learning and enjoyment
increase with authenticity, and do threats to authenticity affect the degree to which people learn
and enjoy? Salamone (1997) argued in his study of two “Mexican” inns that the genuine or real
object and setting may not be necessary to have an authentic experience. One inn was located in
Disneyworld, the other in Mexico. He found that the Disney inn was just as authentic as the
Mexican inn for the respective patrons of each. This perhaps illustrates the blurred line between
originals and simulations that may be occurring today (Starn, 2002). In the case of the Disney
inn, the setting outside was obviously not authentically Mexican. However, the park visitors (in
Salamone’s eyes) could still have a relatively authentic Mexican dining experience. In this case,
the modern “intrusions” within the Disneyworld boundaries did not detract from apparent
perceived authenticity.
Other studies have shown that modern intrusions in the heritage setting do have negative
effects. In a study of “The Rocks” in Sydney, Australia, the setting was found to be quite
inauthentic. Waitt (2000) wrote that the presentation was Eurocentric and specifically designed
for tourists. Modern commercialization of the place provided an inauthentic view of Australia.
Waitt argues that the infrastructure is designed to generate tourist spending, but the port fails to
provide visitors with the dismal side of 18th century life in the area. In essence, this
“commodification of the past” at The Rocks was found to be ineffective in providing visitors
with an authentic view of the past.
Authenticity is a much-studied, debatable concept in the leisure literature. Authenticity
has been framed in a variety of ways, from an “original object” approach to an existential or
“authentic self” approach. In other words, must artifacts themselves and the setting be genuine
for a historical park to be labeled authentic, or is authenticity strictly in the eye of the beholder?
Simply framing and defining authenticity is a difficult task. Some have argued that the heritage
experience is located outside the person, i.e., pleasure of the experience comes from being in
proximity to the heritage site (Uzzell, 1998). But if the park setting is perceived as authentic by
visitors, will intrusions to the authenticity affect experience quality? At ACHNHP, despite the
best efforts of the National Park Service, elements of the historical scene are lacking. For
example, many of the historical structures visited by the public have air conditioning. Lighting
inside the buildings has been altered to better protect historical objects and documents. Also,
modern intrusions in the form of lawns and manicured walkways are pervasive throughout the
village, and lawnmowers and other gasoline-powered equipment are periodically present to
maintain this “inauthenticity.” The NPS does not know whether the visitor sees the setting as
authentic, and whether or not varying levels of authenticity shape the nature of the leisure
experience. This study will attempt to address this apparent lack of knowledge.
4
Study Objectives
This study has the following objectives:
1) To develop a definition of authenticity using past research and theoretical discussion
on the meaning and importance of authenticity on leisure experience. As stated before,
authenticity has been conceptualized in many different ways in the leisure literature; however, a
single definition will be developed for use in this study.
2) To identify and discuss the reasons or motivations for coming to the park, and to
determine whether achieving an authentic experience is an important reason for visiting the park
among tourists.
3) To determine the relationship between the desire for authenticity and satisfaction with
site and program conditions and overall quality of the visitor experience.
The following sections will be included in this paper to report on our efforts to
accomplish these objectives. First, a Literature Review will be included that will review the
concept of authenticity in an attempt to frame authenticity as it pertains to this study. Past
research and theoretical discussion of authenticity will be key to the Literature Review. Next,
the Methods section will provide details about the study population, the sampling design, and
data collection and analyses instruments and procedures. The Methods section will also include
information on a field experiment to increase our ability to draw conclusions about the role of
authenticity in shaping visitor experiences. The findings of the study will then be presented in a
Results section. Finally, a Discussion and Conclusion section will interpret these results and
provide implications for park management based on the study’s findings. Also, limitations of the
study will be discussed, and implications for future research will be examined.
5
Literature Review
The Meaning of Authenticity
In Webster’s dictionary, the word “authentic” means “being what is represented or
claimed to be; genuine; real.” Others in the social science field have declared that a search for
authenticity is the search for “the unspoiled, pristine, and genuine” (McIntosh and Prentice,
1999). Authenticity can also be defined based on the self. Erickson (1995) conceptualized that
being authentic is to “exist wholly by the laws of one’s own being.” These different
conceptualizations range from the authenticity of the toured object to the authenticity of the
tourist. Varying definitions of the concept hint at the trouble of trying to frame the concept
named authenticity.
Authenticity, as a term and a concept, has existed for centuries (Erickson, 1995).
However, it has not been studied in the social sciences until roughly the last half-century. A
discussion of authenticity, especially in a sense of historical preservation, may have begun with
the Venice Charter of 1964 (Starn, 2002). Although a historical preservation movement began in
Europe in the early 19th century, authenticity was not yet a keyword (Starn, 2002). Starn (2002)
discussed the ideal of authenticity, put forth by the Venice Charter, which stated that cultural
heritage should be safeguarded, ancient monuments are a common heritage, and it is the duty of
the people to hand them on in the full richness of their authenticity. This statement reveals
something about the way authenticity was traditionally conceived: i.e., authenticity was viewed
from an “object” approach.
Objective Authenticity
When people begin to think of authenticity, they usually conceive of an object from
another time, and the object is inherently authentic because it is in a museum and everyone is
told that it is real or genuine. Ethnographers and other research scientists generally have a more
rigorous criteria of the authenticity of objects than do members of the public (Ehrentraut, 1993;
Cohen, 1988; Bruner, 1989). This conception begins to focus on the objective version of
authenticity, or the “object-oriented” approach. Objective authenticity involves a museumlinked usage of the authenticity of originals that are also the toured objects to be perceived by
tourists (Wang, 1999). Objects themselves are perceived as potentially possessing authenticity.
MacCannell (1973) provided an early framework for understanding objective authenticity
and its importance among tourists, i.e., that authenticity can be found or received by the
individual. A key concept is that reality and authenticity are found elsewhere, or outside the
tourist (MacCannell, 1999). Many westerners tend to believe that authenticity can only be found
through tourism, beyond the realm of inauthenticity in their own lives (Silver, 1993). This
means that the “real” thing is something the tourist finds in other cultures and historical time
periods (MacCannell, 1999).
Furthermore, MacCannell claimed (based on the work of Goffman (1959)) that all tourist
settings could be divided into either “front” or “back” regions. Goffman’s thesis was based
around the notion that performers never stop giving off expressions or impressions (Goffman,
1959). Taken one step further, a place or a person is a continuous source of expression. People
or performers constantly express themselves and do so in a front region and a back region. The
front region is the place a performance is given. It regularly functions in a fixed fashion to
6
define the situation for those who observe it (Goffman, 1959). This front region includes the
setting (furniture, décor, layout, scenery, historic buildings) and the personal attributes of the
performer. These include age, race, rank, and speech pattern among others, and are split by
Goffman into appearance and manners (1959). In essence, a performer is always playing a role
in the front region, broadcasting to the audience the situation and story that he or she wants the
people to see and hear. To Goffman and MacCannell, the front region would be considered to be
less authentic than the back.
Tourists often attempt to enter back regions because the back is associated with an
intimacy of relations and authenticity of experiences (MacCannell, 1973). The back region is a
place relative to a given performance (front) where the impression fostered by the performance is
knowingly contradicted as a matter or course (Goffman, 1959). This is the area where the front
region performance is planned, and some things suppressed in the front region performance
appear in the back region that the performer doesn’t wish the audience to see. The performer
retires to this region, relaxes, and drops his or her front (Goffman, 1959). The back can be
located in the same area as the front, but the audience is partitioned off (Goffman, 1959).
Front/back dividing lines can be found throughout society, both in places where formal
performances occur and in everyday life. Goffman discusses examples like hotel kitchen and
dining rooms, front yards and back yards, and the ‘on-air’ versus ‘off-air’ regions in a
broadcasting studio. A place that acts mostly as a front can also at times be a back region
(Goffman, 1959). An example of this is a park that has brought in tourists all day and then
becomes a back region after hours. Repair, construction, and mowing all take place after hours
and are not designed for the tourist to view.
MacCannell’s original viewpoint suggests that a back region is more authentic than a
front. In this study, and in terms of ACHNHP, the front/back dichotomy would not seem as
strict as MacCannell’s and Goffman’s original viewpoints. It seems that in a historical park like
ACHNHP, the setting, the exhibits, and the interpretation (living history) provide a front region
that seems as genuine or perhaps even more genuine than the back region. Put differently, the
back region at the park is not the 1865 back region; however, the front region where the exhibits
are displayed and the performances take place is meant to convey the feeling of the 1865 setting.
Early conceptions of authenticity, like MacCannell’s, view the tourist as taking a passive
role (McIntosh and Prentice, 1999). In other words, the tourist is not actively engaged in
constructing authenticity. Instead, leisure providers (i.e., park managers) can provide
authenticity to the tourist by managing the recreation area and providing good interpretation and
objectively authentic exhibits for display.
A good example of a front region display in a historical setting is in living history
performances. Today many tourists, historic park visitors included, want structured leisure
experiences that are high in entertainment value (Janiskee, 1996; Bruner, 1989). One of the
ways in which historic places meet this demand for a structured experience is through living
history portrayals (Stover, 1989; Krugler, 1991; Pahl, 1994; Janiskee, 1996). Living history is an
action-oriented event in which actors from a certain historical time attempt to give visitors an
authentic view of the past, often with a historic house or setting as a backdrop to their
performance. These performances are constructed to meet the demands of tourists (Bruner,
1989). Tourists also tend to share a desire to experience authenticity (Bruner, 1989; Silver,
1993). As previously stated, there is a widely held notion that the authentic is found in other
cultures and time periods. Living history can be a catalyst to take the tourist to these old
cultures. Furthermore, it can be very valuable for park managers to not only attract more
7
tourists, but to increase visitor learning and bring visitors back again and again (Janiskee, 1996).
Also, if a living history performance helps to bring a visitor closer to the past, then one could
argue that living history contributes to authenticity.
Researchers should never underestimate the power of the tourist’s quest for the ‘authentic
savage’, or desire to see the ‘authentic primitive’ (Bruner, 1989; Silver, 1993). Whether
searching for a primitive society found elsewhere or visiting a local historical park, tourists tend
to translate their experience onto images and objects (Bruner, 1989; Littrell, Anderson, and
Brown, 1993). Souvenirs, crafts, and photos are examples of the objects through which tourists
tend to translate their experience. These provide evidence of having “found the authentic”
(Littrell, Anderson, and Brown 1993). In this way, objects hold meaning. Items like photos,
crafts, and souvenirs come to represent and encapsulate the experience onto image and object
(Bruner, 1989).
Constructive Authenticity
Object authenticity is not the conceptual approach that all leisure researchers use today.
Instead, many scientists suggest that no original ever existed; their view of authenticity is that it
is either constructed by society through time and/or never existed in the first place (Hughes,
1995; Waitt, 2000; Cohen, 1988). Because of this viewpoint, this study and others (Wang, 1999)
use the term “constructive authenticity.” As an example of constructive authenticity, Disney
World is commonly seen today as merely a theme park for entertainment, and the word
“authentic” and Disney would not likely appear in print together. However, over time, Disney
World could become an authentic American place as culture constructs itself through time
(Salamone, 1997). To many researchers, constructive authenticity means that the concept is a
result of social construction (Wang, 1999). Objects or settings appear authentic not because they
are inherently real or genuine, but because they are so constructed by a point of view or belief of
a culture (Wang, 1999). Culture is constantly “making itself up,” and marketers and advertisers
building a version of a heritage place as authentic is an example of constructive authenticity.
Waitt (2000) researched “The Rocks” in Sydney, Australia, a place advertised to tourists
as a historic Australian setting. Waitt claimed that this tourist setting as it was developed and
presented is not an authentic representation of Australia’s past but was only one of many
possible versions. Specifically, it is a Eurocentric version of an Australian port. Most of the
dismal qualities of this place in 1800 were overlooked in its reconstruction, and “The Rocks”
seemed to represent only the glorified past of the place. In this way, “The Rocks” is a version of
Australia constructed by marketers to bring in money and try to satisfy perceived consumer
demands. To the extent that “The Rocks” is viewed as authentic today, it must be described as
constructive authenticity.
The constructivist viewpoint suggests that a sense of the authentic can also flow merely
from the passage of time and the evaluation of culture without the purposeful efforts of
marketers. As discussed briefly in the Introduction, Salamone (1997) concluded that a
representation or remake of an authentic place could reach a level of authenticity in its own right.
He studied two different versions of the Mexican San Angel Inn. One of the inns was the
original in Mexico, and one was its counterpart in Walt Disney World. Salamone believed that
the Mexican inn where real Mexican culture lives and thrives would be perceived as quite
authentic, while the Disney inn would seem fake and give visitors much less of an authentic feel.
However, what Salamone found was that each inn served its own sociocultural purpose. That is,
the inn in Mexico was authentic and true for the Mexicans who went there; the inn in Walt
8
Disney World was an adequate, complimentary inn for tourists and was considered authentic by
its clients (Salamone, 1997 ).
The globalizing culture of today’s world might play a role in shaping Salamone’s finding.
In fact, forces like globalization should be considered when trying to determine the authenticity
of something (Hughes, 1995). Rather than perceiving the Disney inn as contradictory, Salamone
regarded the Disney inn authentic in its own right because it was authentic to the tourist in its
setting. The constructivist viewpoint allows for the authenticity of the Disney inn because of the
forces of time and a globalizing culture, which can be seen as forces that gradually “construct”
an authentic feel for a place. Salamone felt that the Disney version was not contradictory to the
Mexican inn, but complimentary—most likely because through time, Disney either has or will
become authentic to the tourist who visits.
Subjective Authenticity
Another point of view taken by many researchers today about the meaning of authenticity
is a subjective one, or authenticity of the self. This idea suggests that there never was anything
intrinsically authentic; authenticity is entirely in the mind of the individual observer. This point
of view is contrasted with the objective view and the constructive view. In this case, authenticity
is something felt, not found or “out there” to be received by the tourist. It differs from the
constructive viewpoint in that it only involves the subjective view of the individual, and does not
need to include reference to culture or any “constructive” force. Most importantly, the person
feels authentic, and authenticity is not cast upon the toured object.
Wang (1999) suggests that many visitors may be searching for their authentic “selves,”
not an authentic place. For these existential tourists the object outside the self does not matter at
all in this situation. Such tourists taking part in park activities could find their authentic selves.
The toured object and setting only matter to the person who is there at the time—he or she may
achieve an authentic feeling in a McDonald’s, for example; this is an example of subjective
authenticity.
Similar to Wang’s notions, Erickson (1995) suggested that authenticity of the self (i.e.,
subjective authenticity) is not an either/or concept—one is not authentic or inauthentic but some
combination of both. Selves are complex and changing, and authenticity can be thought of as a
system of self-values (Erickson, 1995). The self changes since people constantly construct their
own lives (rather than being dominated by the constructivist nature of society as a whole)
(Bruner, 1989). Rather than simply considering whether or not something is authentic or
inauthentic, perhaps it is better to ask what experiences tourists call authentic and if they view
inauthenticity as a problem (Erickson, 1995).
Summary of Authenticity
The one idea that is found throughout the authenticity literature is that authenticity is not
easily conceptualized. The concept of authenticity is fuzzy and an easy target for criticism
(Starn, 2002). Since a movement to protect heritage monuments grew rapidly in the 1960’s,
conceptions of authenticity have developed and changed, and no consensus has been reached in
the literature. Authenticity is most commonly today seen as a negotiable concept, not inherent in
nature. Today, authenticity is mostly framed by researchers as a self-referential concept, a
construction of culture, or a state of being (Cohen, 1988; Erickson, 1995; Bruner, 1989). For the
most part, these versions of authenticity are views of authenticity as being defined by culture and
9
the self; in other words, authenticity is something felt by the individual and is shaped, at least
partially, by culture. However, objective authenticity cannot be rejected in terms of ACHNHP,
as park managers and curators go to great efforts to define, interpret and create an authentic
scene for the visitors.
Role of Authenticity in Tourism Research
The role of authenticity in leisure pursuits has been researched in the past. Cohen (1979)
has stated that tourists vary in the degree of authenticity they seek. He suggested a model in
which there were five types of tourists: recreational, diversionary, experiential, experimental,
and existential. The type of tourist a person is (or the significance of tourism in his or her life) is
based on that person’s center. The center of an individual depends upon his or her world view
and relation to the society in which the person lives (Cohen, 1979). Taken further, it could be
called one’s spiritual center, a place in which ultimate meanings are derived. The first two types
of tourists, recreational and diversionary, are more passively pursuing leisure—these individuals
are motivated by escape mechanisms and simply to seek a good time. The recreational
experience is in form like going to a movie or watching TV. Diversionary tourists seek a mere
escape from the boredom and the meaninglessness of routine (Cohen, 1979). Cohen claims that
the recreational and diversionary modes of experience do not involve a quest for authenticity.
The experiential, experimental, and existential groups, however, all seek authenticity on some
level. For these groups, leisure and tourism are more profound, and they are motivated by a
quest for meaning, and have an interest in exploring the center of others.
However, Cohen’s experiential group of tourists seems of most interest here. Today, in
the post-modern world, many members of society have become disenchanted and fail to find
meaning in everyday life (Cohen, 1979). In a globalizing world, where people change jobs and
residences much more often than in the past, people can easily achieve some state of alienation.
This disenchantment might lead people to become Cohen’s experiential tourist. The essence of
the experiential tourist is in the experiencing of the authenticity of the life of others (Cohen,
1979). This tourist seeks authenticity elsewhere, in other times or societies. There is no
religious or spiritual conversion, and the tourist remains aware of the “otherness” of what he or
she is touring (Cohen, 1979).
The two other types of tourists that seek authenticity in some fashion (i.e., experimental
and existential) seem outside the scope of this discussion, as they seek some sort of life-changing
experience. Cohen’s experimental tourist seeks alternative lifestyles, and perhaps tries out many
(Cohen, 1979). Drifters and hippies are probably good examples of this type. A greater
commitment exists with the experimental mode than the experiential mode: the experimental
tourist actually engages in another authentic life rather than simply taking joy in observing it
(Cohen, 1979). Finally, the existential mode is the equivalent of a religious conversion, a
complete change in the person’s life on a more permanent basis. The person achieves a new
“center” and becomes part of a new society.
In terms of visitors to ACHNHP, few seem to be following Cohen’s more extreme modes
of authentic experience (experimental and existential). Rather, the experiential mode would
likely describe many of the tourists to the park: disenchanted members of a modern global
society who seek to observe and take in a simpler, more “rooted” way of life. Many others likely
visit ACHNHP for purely recreational and diversionary reasons as well; but for those who wish
to learn and really immerse themselves in the experience of 1865 life, the Cohen’s experiential
mode is of the most interest.
10
Waller and Lea (1999) studied authenticity as a motivational force in leisure engagements
and how it correlates with seeking knowledge and predicting overall enjoyment. They based
their research on a recreational model identifying five motivational types. These motivation
types were a quest for knowledge, punishment minimization, self-esteem, expressive egoenhancement, and reward maximization. Of particular interest this study and Waller and Lea’s
study is the quest for knowledge, which corresponds closely with Cohen’s experiential tourist in
that it is linked with a preference for getting to know and experience another time, place, or
people. Study participants were split into low and high knowledge seekers based on five
knowledge items. This knowledge function was verified by use in previous studies to establish
validity.
Waller and Lea (1999) also conducted focus groups to research the authenticity concept
and used surveys to examine preferences for authenticity among tourists in Spain. The focus
groups were designed to test whether the authenticity concept was familiar to participants and
then to formulate factors relevant to an authentic tourist experience. Surveys were then
conducted to permit a college student sample and a general public sample of research subjects to
express preferences among four unique tourist scenarios identified by the focus groups. Both the
college students and the general public rated the authenticity of the four scenarios consistently
with each other and with the focus groups’ conceptions. In ascending order of authenticity, the
holiday scenarios were rated as follows: 1) Stay at a campsite with few cultural attractions but
good facilities and lots of other tourists; 2) Take a bus tour while in a cultural city and stay in a
nice hotel; 3) A beach holiday in a small, unspoiled seaside village where you stay in an
apartment and tour by yourself; and 4) Stay with Spanish friends in a medium-sized, average
town with no tourist industry and do whatever your Spanish friends do. Participants were also
asked to rate the extent to which they thought they would enjoy each of the scenarios. Both
samples’ enjoyment of each scenario was correlated with their perceptions of its authenticity
(Waller and Lea, 1999). Finally, researchers’ search for knowledge was found to co-vary with
the search for authenticity (Waller and Lea, 1999).
In summary, many researchers have stated that tourists demand authenticity in some form
(MacCannell, 1973; Bruner, 1989; Waller and Lea, 1999). Having an authentic experience is
one of many reasons, or motivations, that people have when choosing a leisure activity.
Furthermore, studies have shown that the demand for authenticity appears to coincide with the
quest for knowledge and perceived enjoyment of the experience.
Past studies have shown tourists’ desires for authenticity to be real, and therefore it seems
reasonable that marketers have spent so much time and money marketing authenticity to tourists.
Authenticity is seen by marketers as a huge selling point (Waller and Lea, 1999). While the
word “authenticity” may not be found in the mission statement of ACHNHP, it seems reasonable
to expect park visitors there would be seeking this kind of an experience. The following section
explains how motivations in leisure, authenticity included, help to shape experiences at
ACHNHP.
The Leisure Experience Process
This section begins with the study’s basic model of the nature of leisure experiences
(Figure 1). The model itself involves three basic parts: the input, the through-put (or on-site),
and the output of leisure engagements. The input box includes the innate or learned needs and
preferences that push or entice a person to decide to engage in recreation. The through-put box
is typically viewed as the on-site activity which is shaped by both the input motivations and on11
site setting conditions. The output box is often seen as the leisure experience, and can be viewed
as immediate (or first-order) outcomes, as satisfactions with elements of the experience and
overall satisfaction (second order), and finally as benefits (improved conditions) from having
engaged in the activity in the specific setting (third order). These outputs can be viewed as being
shaped by both input and through-put variables. This model was chosen to help guide the
literature review about recreational experiences and to guide the overall research design. It is
patterned after a model of leisure suggested by Mannell (1999) and Driver and Tocher (1970).
Input
Needs/Preferences ----------
(Motivation)
On-site
Setting/Activity/Experiences
Output
---------
Goals being
met or unmet,
Satisfactions,
Benefits
Figure 1. Simplified model of leisure experiences.
Input
Tourism such as that typically represented at ACHNHP is a huge part of the leisure
industry. During leisure, people typically use their free time to do whatever they want. Whether
it is hiking, birdwatching, driving for pleasure, or touring Civil War battlefields, people are
participating in activities that they have freely chosen. Recreation involves non-work activity;
however, it is inaccurate to view the activity alone as recreation. Rather, a behavioral approach
to recreation suggests that recreation is an experience (Driver and Tocher, 1970). This approach
states that recreation is a type of human experience based on intrinsically rewarding
engagements during non-obligated time (Driver and Tocher, 1970). Non-obligated time is thus a
necessary, but insufficient condition for leisure experiences. In addition to non-obligated time, a
commitment to the engagement is necessary. The “engagement” includes participation in the
activity itself, but the activity can be nearly anything that is freely chosen during non-work time.
For something to be intrinsically rewarding, the engagement must provide pleasure in and of
itself. Recreational engagements require personal and free choice by the person (Driver and
Tocher, 1970). For example, recreation may be simply a state of mind, meaning that some
recreation involves just thinking (Driver and Tocher, 1970). Thus, daydreaming could be viewed
as a leisure experience.
Since recreation is an experience that occurs within the individual and not simply an
activity, it is important to consider what shapes decisions to engage in certain activities, and why
certain activities and settings are chosen over others. Driver and Tocher (1970) view human
behavior as goal-directed; that is, a person’s choices are instrumental in obtaining some goal or
need satisfaction. Humans are driven by needs, preferences, and desires to achieve certain
outcomes or benefits from recreation. Further, the main thing separating humans from other
species is the ability to process information (Driver and Tocher, 1970). This ability to use
reflective cognitive processes, discriminate among competing values, and make decisions is
critical to the motivation and benefit theories of recreation. Also, this theory of recreation and
12
leisure assumes that the choices made by humans are reasonably rational (Driver, Brown,
Stankey, and Gregoire, 1987).
What are the reasons, or motivations, that people have for participating in various leisure
activities, and how does this affect the overall quality of recreational experiences? One way to
examine these motivations is to look at the outcomes or benefits people seek from leisure. In
theory, people tend to participate in leisure activities in order to attain a desired goal, which is
their motivation for participation. Information about motivation is important for managers
because it is cited as a key to understanding management problems, resolving conflict,
understanding substitute activities, establishing management objectives for a recreation area, and
understanding experience quality (Knopf, Peterson, and Leatherberry, 1983).
Motivations to recreate are considered to be any unmet need that pushes or pulls people
to take on a leisure pursuit. Motivation can be thought of as a set of internal or external factors
that arouse or direct human behavior (Ewert, 1993; Iso-Ahola, 1999). People are motivated to
recreate by psychological and physical forces (Driver and Tocher, 1970). These forces can be
viewed in one of two ways. One type of motivation can be viewed as an attraction towards
something: a better than normal situation, some activity or place that is attractive, or some more
positive outcome or benefit. Generally speaking, this conception of motivation is linked with a
higher level of human functioning. As examples, these “pull” motivations represent desires for a
gain in learning, creativity, and self-actualization (Driver and Tocher, 1970). The second way
that motivations are conceptualized is the desire to escape something in everyday life (Driver and
Tocher, 1970). The idea here is that there is some unmet need in everyday life that can be
satisfied through leisure. It could be a desire to return to normalcy, get away from stress, or
resolve some other deficit being produced in everyday life. There are many attributes or
components both in the leisure experience and the setting that can potentially fulfill these unmet
needs.
Motivations to engage in recreation have often been measured as preferences for specific
experiences (Driver and Tocher, 1970; Driver et al., 1987). People are motivated to recreate in
order to achieve a desired experience. Experience preferences are thus commonly seen as
important reasons or motivations for a person’s participation in an activity (Heywood, 1987).
For a person to engage in a specific leisure activity in a specific setting there must first be the
expectation that efforts to recreate will lead to the desired performance (Manfredo, Driver, and
Brown, 1983). Second, there must be the belief that successful performances will lead to the
experience that was desired (Manfredo, Driver, and Brown, 1983). In other words, if a person
invests time and/or money into the attempt at a chosen activity, there must be the belief that the
engagement will be successful and that it will eventually lead to the desired experience. These
experiences should be thought of as a package of specific psychological outcomes which are
realized from a recreation engagement (Manfredo, Driver, and Brown, 1983).
Recreation Experience Preferences (REP)
The work of Driver and others is grounded in need-based, goal-driven theories of human
behavior. To this end, the Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scales were developed for
measuring preferred goal states (Manfredo, Driver, and Tarrant, 1996). Researchers using
motivation-based constructs are concerned with what arouses, energizes, or activates leisure
behavior (Mannell, 1999). Driver and his associates originally developed the REP scales to aid
managers of parks and natural areas in identifying the needs people seek to satisfy (Mannell,
13
1999). The goals of REP scales were to measure which specific satisfactions are desired from
leisure activities and settings (Mannell, 1999). Experience outcomes like enjoying nature,
reducing tension, creativity, and nostalgia represent some of the many constructs measured by
the REP scales. Thousands of visitors over many years have been surveyed and validated the use
of these scales (Mannell, 1999).
Since the REP was originally developed to aid land managers, what sort of benefit does
REP have for the managers? It offers managers the understanding of what people want from
recreation and offers insight into how recreation might benefit them (Manfredo, Driver, and
Tarrant, 1996). Also, the REP provides some suggestions/insights on how to manage to provide
opportunities for satisfying experiences. Park missions are often broad and difficult to interpret,
and meeting specific needs of visitors may be overlooked. If managers ignore desired leisure
benefits of the public, then managerial decisions may be challenged or even taken to court.
Therefore, public involvement becomes necessary when analyzing resources and developing
management plans for public lands. A wide array of planning and management tasks, including
the development of management objectives, can be facilitated by knowing the desired benefits of
the public (Manfredo, Driver, and Tarrant, 1996). Competing needs and scarce resources require
managers to maximize the functionality of the land base. Conflict can be avoided if managers
know the desired satisfactions of the consumer (Manfredo, Driver, and Tarrant, 1996). Also,
different activities and settings satisfy different needs, resulting in differences in the
attractiveness of activities and settings (Mannell, 1999). The REP scales thus seem like an
invaluable tool for managers to use to decide what mix of settings will satisfy the greatest need.
The REP scales and need-satisfaction approach are not without problems. The first issue
is the assumption that people have the ability to rationally assess a dynamic cognitive process
(Mannell, 1999). In other words, do persons of general public actually think about what they
need, and then whether or not that specific need can be met or was met at the park? This idea
hints at a second problem, and that is asking people to recall outcomes that were important when
they made the decision to pick an activity and setting (Manfredo, Driver, and Tarrant, 1996).
Most visitor research is done after the park visit, and often surveys ask participants to rate the
importance of a motive, an activity or setting long after the on-site engagement. A final issue
involves substitutability of activities. Does one activity fulfill only one need, or can one activity
or setting fulfill several different needs?
The REP measures have been used in different ways. Some research has analyzed single
needs or desires. The needs for social interaction, risk-taking, variety and change, and intrinsic
motivation have all been objects of past research (Mannell, 1999). Other research has studied
the many different experience preferences, and the relative importance of each, for a population
of visitors to a certain park or engaged in a single activity. Further research has compared the
recreation experience preferences of recreationists across activities and settings. The REP scales,
then, can be used and adapted to fit a variety of recreation, research, and management needs.
The focus of this research is on the strength of the desire for authenticity relative to other
motivations for visiting ACHNHP. Conceptually, the desire for authentic experience comes
from those tourists who wish to learn what life was like in other times and cultures. Some
visitors may be drawn to an authentic past, while the present time and place seem more and more
inauthentic. Still other visitors may only have a weak or no desire for authenticity and are
simply seeking a diversion from the everyday norm.
The purpose of this “input” section was to give an overview of a model of recreation
behavior, the role of motivations in shaping recreation experiences, and measurement
14
instruments (REP) used in the past to assess motivational constructs. Also, an objective was to
establish the rationale for a study of authenticity as an important motivation for leisure activities,
especially among recreationists to historical parks. The following section will explain the nature
of the on-site leisure engagement.
On-Site Engagement
The on-site phase or through-put in a leisure engagement depicted in the model in Figure
1 (found previously in this chapter) is the on-site activities and the setting. It is in this part of the
model that the tourist theoretically encounters attributes of the setting, engages in activities, and
begins to experience and evaluate the quality of the setting and the activities engaged in. This
evaluation is based in part on motivational forces and experience preferences that prompted the
recreational engagement. Setting variables of importance are physical, social, and managerial
(Driver et al., 1987). More specifically, on-site attributes of possible importance include such
park resources as landscape conditions, facility conditions, use and user conditions, and
information and education services. Some of these attributes might be conceptualized as being
good indicators of authenticity in the case of ACHNHP. The “historically accurate” condition of
buildings in the main village, screening of outside activities, screening of noise, and quality of
living history programs in the park are considered by NPS planners and managers to be examples
of attributes indicative of authenticity.
A good way to approach an understanding of this part of the model is through the
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) approach to setting management and planning. The
ROS is a planning framework used extensively by agencies including the USDA Forest Service
and the Bureau of Land Management. The basic assumption of ROS is that people choose a
particular activity in a particular setting to achieve particular preferred experiences (Virden and
Knopf, 1989). The main function of recreation planning is to ensure a diversity of recreation
opportunities (Driver et al., 1987). The application of the ROS is to ensure this diversity by
attempting to provide for these desired opportunities and experiences.
People have different needs or preferences when it comes to leisure time and recreation.
In the 1960’s, some research was centered on the need to consider the role of different recreation
settings in providing desired opportunities for meeting different needs (Driver et al., 1987).
Obviously, when attempting to meet the needs of the public, a vast array of desired opportunities
must be formulated. Therefore, a spectrum of opportunity classes needed to be developed to
meet the many needs, motives, and preferences in a variety of environments for the demanding
public (Driver et al., 1987). The ROS is a planning framework that provides for a continuum of
six classes of recreation opportunities from primitive to urban by combining mixtures of
activities and settings (Buist and Hoots, 1982; Driver et al., 1987; Virden and Knopf, 1989). The
distinction separating the ROS from previous frameworks is the focus on experience rather than
activity alone (Driver et al, 1987).
In order to achieve desired experiences, the ROS includes two main areas of concern to
planners: the activity (behavior) and setting. Activities include anything that the recreationist
participates in, like hiking, skiing, birdwatching, or visiting a historic site. The setting is where
the activity occurs, but it is much more complex than that. Setting is made up of physical, social,
and managerial components (Driver et al., 1987). Physical components are all of the natural and
biological resources, while the social component includes the users, their characteristics, what
they bring to the setting (e.g., numbers, behavior, equipment), and what they do at the site. The
managerial setting includes all services and rules and regulations provided on site. These could
15
be uniformed rangers or living history presentations. Particular combinations, then, of these
activities and settings provide the different and sometimes unique opportunities for experiences
(Driver et al., 1987).
While experiences themselves cannot be easily inventoried, setting indicators that shape
experiences can be used (Buist and Hoots, 1982). Indicators of the setting can be used to classify
land areas for experience opportunities. Specifically, five criteria are commonly used concerning
the setting: remoteness, size, evidence of human impact, number of users, and amount of
managerial regimentation and control (Driver et al, 1987; Buist and Hoots; 1982). For example,
if a fence is located in or at the edge of a recreation area, it represents a certain level of
management control or regimentation. The fence would shape the kind of experience
opportunity provided. Fencing may or may not be appropriate depending upon the kind of
experience opportunity to be provided. At the primitive end of the recreation opportunity
spectrum, it would likely not be appropriate. However, in an already urban recreation setting,
the fence would probably not interfere with the existing experience opportunity.
The preceding section gave a brief introduction to the ROS and its function in land
management. The ROS is an invaluable tool used by managers and planners to identify
recreation opportunity trade-offs associated with proposed management actions (Buist and
Hoots, 1982). As with all frameworks, the ROS is not perfect. For example, Virden and Knopf
(1989) found that some desired experiences among Colorado wilderness users were more
activity-dependent, while others were more setting dependent. One experience preference,
autonomy, was found in this study to not be associated with activity and setting preferences.
Another study expressed problems with the linearity between the ROS setting components, and
an oversimplification of descriptions of points along the ROS continuum (Heywood,
Christensen, and Stankey, 1991). Generally, however, ROS has been a useful planning tool for
land management agencies. Knopf and Barnes (1980) administered a study that involved tenets
of the ROS, and grouped visitors using cluster analysis into eight different motive profiles. This
allowed them to single out a group that was comprised of high authenticity seekers, and examine
their setting and management preferences.
Using tools like the ROS allows managers to provide the appropriate settings for
recreationists to achieve desired experiences. The ROS approach helps us to understand what
happens during the on-site recreation experience. It suggests along what dimensions
recreationists make distinctions among settings and that motivation plays a role in choosing a
setting (Virden and Knopf, 1989). It suggests the criteria that visitors use to evaluate conditions
and services on site. It suggests that motivations to engage in a recreation activity in a certain
setting shape the importance placed on certain aspects of the setting (e.g., quality of living
history programs, number of historic buildings open to the public) and how these setting
attributes might shape certain aspects of the experience and to the overall experience. In theory,
the level of importance of an attribute of the setting will have an effect on how critically the
recreationist judges the performance of that attribute as it affects his or her experience. For
instance, if it is very important for the individual tourist to be isolated from modern intrusions
like highway noise, then the presence of noise will likely cause this person to have lower
satisfaction with this setting attribute. Conversely, if the tourist is indifferent about noise, then
he or she would tend to not hear, be less critical and perhaps be satisfied with the amount of
noise. Put another way, it is important to evaluate the level of experience quality or satisfaction
in light of the perceived importance of the given attribute (Hammitt, Bixler and Noe, 1996).
16
Output
The output component of the leisure experience model (Figure 1) addresses the quality
and benefits of the visitor experience. The model suggests that experience quality is shaped both
by what the visitor brings to the park, the setting attributes encountered, and the activities
engaged in at the park. The quality of the experience can be conceptualized in a variety of ways,
but typically quality of leisure experiences is seen as having cognitive, affective, and
behavioral/physiological dimensions.
The cognitive dimension of leisure output can include several aspects. One part of this
dimension is learning. People engaged in leisure activities in leisure settings grow in knowledge
of facts and/or concepts and develop frameworks for organizing knowledge (Roggenbuck,
Loomis, and Dagostino, 1991). With or without interpretation, visiting parks and historical sites
provide the settings for leisure activities that can make knowledge gain possible. Research
indicates that recreational engagements often result in increased learning, and that the learning is
highly satisfying. For example, a study by Roggenbuck, Williams, and Bobinski (1992) revealed
significant increases in knowledge about natural and cultural history among New River Gorge
rafters with trained guides and that this increase in knowledge was highly valued by participants.
Past research has shown that learning is often among the most sought after benefits in leisure
time activities (Roggenbuck, Loomis, and Dagostino, 1991). Learning new skills is also a
common goal for recreationists; maneuvering a kayak, tying a knot in mountain climbing, or
bear-proofing food are examples. Along with learning, the improvement of attitudes toward
protection of park resources and conservation can also be achieved through leisure activities, as
well as an increased desire to visit historical sites.
A second output dimension of leisure is affective. Changes in mood, such as an increase
in happiness or enjoyment, are possible affective outputs. As stated previously, authentic leisure
experiences often yield high enjoyment (Waller and Lea, 1999).
It is generally agreed that leisure is a positive experience accompanied by satisfying and
pleasurable moods, emotions, or feelings (Mannell, 1980). Mood is a predictable, measurable,
theoretically grounded product of leisure activities (Hull 1991). It is not an abstract construct
that cannot be defined. Furthermore, moods are specific sets of subjective feelings that occur as
a consequence of everyday leisure experiences. Happiness or sadness, excitement, and
relaxation are examples of moods. Moods can even have long-lasting consequences on the
immune system, cognitive skills, and behavior (Hull, 1991). All sorts of things affect one’s
mood. Some of these factors are largely imperceptible, but some factors can be influenced by
recreation managers. Managers can determine the amount of lighting during slide shows or
surrounding historical exhibits. Physical characteristics in a setting, like number of trees and
maintenance of vegetation, can be controlled by managers and affect the mood of visitors.
Social characteristics, like amount of people in a park or recreational area, can also be controlled
by managers and have an effect on mood. However, managers may have little or no control over
things like noise from a nearby road, weather, and other outside influences.
Leisure-related causes of mood can have many consequences. Hull (1991) found that
certain moods can increase attention and cognition among participants. In a historical park
setting, having the right mood to promote cognitive and attentive skills would likely be very
important to a high-quality experience. Behavior is also affected by mood (Hull, 1991). A
happy person or someone in a state of relaxation would likely spend more time learning and be
17
more respectful of the resource or other recreationists. Furthermore, it was shown that
physiology and health are products of moods.
Not all outcomes of leisure engagements are positive. People in park settings can
experience conflict, and this can be associated with both affective and cognitive qualities.
Conflict has been defined in recreation situations as goal interference attributed to another
individual’s behavior (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). This notion fits neatly into the goal-driven
recreational ideas of Driver and his colleagues. Conflict is not objective, but can be the result of
an individual’s evaluation of past and future social contacts (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). Some
social contacts, like hearing someone’s cellular phone ring during an interpretive program at a
historical park, are direct, and this can cause a loss in quality of the experience. However,
indirect contact can be a cause of conflict as well (Jacob and Schreyer, 1980). An example of
indirect contact might be seeing a contrail of a plane overhead during a living history
presentation at a Civil War-era historical park.
A final way to conceptualize leisure outputs is through behavioral and physiological
dimensions. Physiological or biological outputs from leisure are well documented. The study of
exercise and lifestyle is likely to reveal some of the beneficial impacts of recreational
engagements on the well-being of individuals (Paffenberger, Hyde and Dow, 1991). Improved
cardiovascular health can be achieved through more rigorous leisure pursuits, but on any level,
leisure time can be used to reduce stress in an individual. The temporary escape from life’s
pressures can reduce stress, and the restorative properties of leisure allow for stress reduction
(Ulrich, Dimberg, and Driver, 1991). Leisure may allow for a “sense of control” by the
individual, or an unconstrained time free from required work and other responsibilities. Active
coping like exercise or passive recreation like sitting and enjoying a natural landscape work to
produce this “sense of control” which in turn reduces stress (Ulrich, Dimberg, and Driver, 1991).
While physiological rewards from leisure are important, they will not be quantified in this study.
Knowledge gained, perceptions of crowdedness, conflict, and overall enjoyment will be
examined.
Model of the ACHNHP Leisure Experience
This research addresses the role of authenticity in shaping experiences in a
historical park. Past research has shown that authenticity has been conceived in different ways.
The NPS management and historians have expressed what they conceive to be authentic; that is,
the park setting, interpretation, and historical objects. This study will attempt to answer the
questions of whether or not visitors come to the park for reasons of authenticity and how finding
or not finding authenticity shapes visitor experiences.
This study’s model of leisure behavior at ACHNHP (Figure 2) is based on the more
generalized model developed by Driver and Tocher (1970) described above. It calls for the
measurement of motivation with a special emphasis on authenticity as input to the overall
experience. On-site variables to be measured include the importance of park conditions, facility
conditions, and information/education services, and how well visitors felt they performed.
Outputs of the recreational engagements to be measured include visitor learning, crowding,
conflict, and enjoyment.
Figure 2 also suggests the relationships among the variables the will be examined. First,
the authenticity motive will be related to the importance of park setting variables. The
contribution of authenticity motives and importance of setting attributes to understanding
18
performance of the setting variables will then be analyzed. In addition, to gain further insight
into the possible effect of on-site variables that might disrupt the historic or authentic scene,
mechanical noise will be experimentally introduced. Its effect upon visitors’ evaluation of park
setting performance will be analyzed.
Mechanical noise effects in the park system have been studied previously (Gramann,
1999). One aspect of many parks that is important, especially in historical parks or wilderness
areas, is amount of sound and type of sound. “Natural quiet” is considered to be a manageable
value like solitude or a sense of history (Gramann, 1999). The sound of birds, rushing water, or
other natural sounds are usually considered acceptable to park visitors. However, mechanical
noise in a park setting would usually be undesirable. In fact, the NPS considered natural sound
to be an integral part of visitor experiences in many wilderness areas, caves, and cultural sites
with strong memorial values (Gramann, 1999). Therefore, noise created by lawnmowers or other
man-made machines was considered to be undesirable. One way to understand the effects of
mechanical noise is by using a psychological approach. People are not homogeneous in how
they perceive a setting, and people also have different expectations for noise in various settings
(Gramann, 1999). In today’s society, many people might expect to hear mechanical noise from
roadways in the parks they visit. But they would not likely expect such noise in visit to a
historical park.
Finally, the combined effect of the authenticity motive, importance of setting attributes,
the mechanical noise intervention, and performance of setting attributes will be related to park
visitors’ gain in knowledge, perception of crowding, perception of conflicts, and overall
experience enjoyment.
Input
Motivation
(Authenticity)
On-site
First Order
Output
Importance/Performance
Knowledge

or park conditions,
gain,
facility conditions, and
Conflict,
information/education
Crowding
services. Mechanical
noise (Yes/No)
Figure 2. Operationalized Model of Leisure Experiences.

19

Second
Order
Output
Enjoyment
of Park
Visit
Methods
Study Population
The primary study population was defined as all adult visitors who visited Appomattox
Court House National Historical Park (ACHNHP) between mid-June 2001 through August 2001,
and during October 2001. Sampling was limited to these months because they represent the high
use season at the park. The month of October was added to include visitors who come for fall
color, when fall visitation is at its peak.
Cross-Sectional Survey and Sampling Design
Visitors were contacted for participation in this study on the exit path as they were
leaving the main historic village and returning to their car in the parking lot. While there are
other paths out of the village, this path is by far the most heavily used.
Two weekend days and four weekday days were sampled per month. For reasons of cost
effectiveness, sampling was performed on two consecutive weekday or weekend days. Sampling
was done between the hours of 10 am and 5 pm each day. The blocks of days for sampling were
selected at random; therefore, it was possible that the weekday and weekend sampling days
could run together consecutively (e.g., four consecutive sampling days), and this indeed
happened on two occasions.
The overall goal of the study was to obtain survey responses from about 400 park
visitors. We felt this number would permit us to do post-stratification of our sample and still
have enough subjects to permit robust analyses. We assumed a 70% survey response rate, and
thus sought to gain the cooperation of about 565 individuals on-site. Given this, we attempted to
contact one person from every four groups exiting the park. This would result in about 22
visitors included in the sample per day on weekdays. On each weekend day, about 32
individuals would be enlisted. No planned sampling days were cancelled due to bad weather.
Table 1 shows the sampling days by month and day of the week.
Table 1.
Month
June
July
August
October
Total
Sampling days by month and day of the week.
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
4
2
3
2
3
Friday
1
1
1
1
4
Saturday
1
1
1
1
4
Total
3
7
6
6
22
Field Experiment
For the purposes of this study, the technician recorded whether or not there was a
mechanical noise intrusion present in the park during the times of the respondents’ visit.
Mechanical noise intrusions are generally not allowed in the village during normal operating
hours, but were allowed on several sampling days for the purposes of this study. The intrusions
were made by lawnmowers, tree-trimming equipment, or motorized lawn carts. Most of these
noise intrusions were planned ahead of time and introduced into the park setting during visitor
20
hours; others happened to be in the park during a sampling day. Visitors in the noise and nonoise treatments were then compared to test whether aspects of the park experience were
threatened by noise intrusions.
The research technician worked with the park maintenance staff to schedule these
intrusions on July 16 and 17, and August 9, 10, 14, and 15. Also, several October days (1, 2, and
3) there were unplanned noise intrusions in the park that were noted. The hours that the intrusion
was present in the park was determined by the technician through direct observation. As visitors
left the park, the technician was able to record whether or not they were touring the park during
the time of intrusion. If there was a noise intrusion, the type (mower, weedeater, lawn cart) of
noise was recorded. It was also noted whether or not the intrusion was coming from inside or
outside of the main village. Table 2 shows when the intrusions occurred and to how many study
participants.
Table 2. Dates of intrusions with total number of study participants receiving intrusion.
Date
Number of Participants
Present During Intrusion
16 July 2001, Monday
18
17 July 2001, Tuesday
12
9 August 2001, Thursday
18
10 August 2001, Friday
8
14 August 2001, Tuesday
13
15 August 2001, Wednesday
19
1 October 2001, Monday
12
2 October 2001, Tuesday
9
3 October 2001, Wednesday
4
Total:
113 (out of 561 visitors)
On no weekend days were there introduced intrusions, and none incidentally noted by the
researcher. However, on 41% (9 out of 22) of the sampling days there was a mechanical noise
intrusion at the park at some point during the day.
Data Collection Procedures
During sampling days, a research technician contacted potential study participants on site
and asked for their cooperation in the study. A person from every fourth group was asked to
participate in the study if he or she appeared to be age 16 or older. Also, an attempt was made to
get an approximately equal number of males and females to participate in the study. No more
than one person was surveyed per group.
If the visitor agreed to cooperate in the study, he or she was given a two-page contact
sheet to fill out on-site (see the contact sheet in Appendix A). The contact sheet asked for the
participants’ name and address so that they could be sent a mail-back survey. Confidentiality of
responses was assured, and respondents were told that their names would not go on any other
mailing lists. The contact sheet also requested information about group size, group composition
(e.g., family, friends, or a combination), and certain likes and dislikes about their day at the park.
Furthermore, respondents were asked about their interest in the Civil War and whether or not
21
they felt certain issues to be a problem in the park on that day. The research technician also
recorded the time, the weather, the date, and if a noise intrusion was present during the visit (see
Field Experiment, this chapter).
Within a week or two of respondents’ trip to ACHNHP, a mail-back survey was sent to
all individuals who provided a name and address on the on-site contact sheet. A modified
Dillman (1978) mail survey method was used to obtain as large a response rate as possible. The
method involved the first survey mailing, a postcard reminder about one week after the initial
survey mailing, a second complete survey mailing two weeks after the postcard, and a final third
complete survey mailing about three weeks after the second survey mailing. A response rate of
70% was sought.
The mail-back survey was 12 pages long (see the survey in Appendix B). Questions on
the mail-back survey included a description of the visit, trip motivations, trip planning, trip
expenditures, involvement with National Park Service (NPS) historical areas, evaluation of park
conditions and services, knowledge of the park story, perceptions of crowding and conflict, visit
enjoyment, and socio-demographics of the respondent.
Data Analysis
Operationalizing Study Variables
The statistical programs Excel and SPSS will be used in the data analysis of visitor
surveys. After defining authenticity, trip motivations were examined to see whether or not
motivations for authenticity were important to visitors out of a list of 21 motivation items rated
from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important).
Participants were asked to rate the importance and performance of 39 setting attributes
grouped into park conditions, facility conditions, and programs and services. Visitors were
asked to rate the importance of each item on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely
important) and then rate the performance of the item on the same measurement scale.
Four output variables were examined: Knowledge scores were computed for each
participant by adding up the number correct on a 10-question multiple choice quiz in the
mailback survey. Another first order output analyzed was perception of crowding. Crowding
was measured on the mailback survey using one question: “Overall, how crowded did you feel
during your visit to Appomattox Court House National Historical Park?” The respondent was
asked to circle an answer from 1 (not at all crowded) to 9 (extremely crowded). Examining
conflict that visitors had with other users/uses at the park was done in two ways: once on the
contact sheet during the day of their visit, and once in the mailback survey. Conflict was
measured on-site by asking visitors, “To what extent did you find the following to be a problem
in the park today?” about eight possible conflict items. The scale ranged from 1 (not a problem)
to 4 (big problem). Two items seemed relevant to this study: 1)use of mechanized equipment in
the historic village and 2) too much noise in the historic village. These were chosen because
they seemed to relate directly to the field experiment and in some way to authenticity. A single
yes/no conflict question was examined from the mailback survey, “Did you ever feel conflict
with other uses or users at Appomattox Court House National Historical Park?”
Finally, overall enjoyment was measured by one question in the mailback survey:
“Overall, how would you rate your experience at Appomattox Court House National Historical
Park?” The rating scale was from 1 (very poor) to 7 (very good).
22
Assessing Relationships among Variables
Several analytical tools were used in examining relationships among variables suggested
by the study’s model. First, descriptive statistics like frequencies and measures of central
tendency are given for the variables. Another method used was exploratory factor analysis. The
list of motives were factor analyzed to test which items were highly correlated and thus likely
measuring the same construct, thus helping to efficiently summarize complex constructs like
authentic motivation. The importance and performance of all 39 park attributes were also factor
analyzed in an attempt to determine which items visitors rated similarly. This permitted us to
form an index of items measuring the same construct, thus increasing reliability of our measures
and permitting greater efficiency in reporting results.
Paired T-tests were used to test the relative importance of authentic motivations against
other motivation constructs formed by factor analysis. Independent sample T-tests were used to
assess differences in the reporting of conflict between those visitors who received the mechanical
noise treatment versus those who did not. The treatment, or mechanical noise intrusion, will be
treated in the study model as a throughput along with importance/performance variables. The
treatment variable is a dummy variable, indicating the intrusion was simply present or not
present during the visit.
The study’s model and literature review suggested that a visitor with a higher desire for
authenticity would rate the importance of park setting variables seemingly reflecting genuine
conditions most highly. In an attempt to validate the study model, a Pearson’s r was used to
assess the correlation between authentic motivation and the importance visitors gave to several
park attribute factors.
Finally, regression was used to test relationships between the input (motivation),
throughput (mechanical noise treatment, importance/performance of park attributes) and output
(knowledge gain, perceived crowding, perceived conflict, and overall experience enjoyment)
variables. Several regression analyses were required. First, the predictive nature of motivation,
treatment, and importance on performance was assessed. Next, the relationships of motivation,
treatment, and importance/performance on the first order outputs (knowledge, crowding, and
conflict) were determined using stepwise regression. Finally, enjoyment was predicted using
authentic motivation, treatment, importance/performance, and the first order outputs as
independent variables in stepwise regression.
23
Results
Response Rate
Visitors were very willing to assist the ACHNHP managers by participating in the
survey. The vast majority of visitors (about 95%) agreed to complete the contact sheet and
provide their names and addresses so they could be sent the longer mail-back survey. Of the 561
names and addresses collected on-site, 400 (71.3%) returned completed mail-back surveys.
Objective 1: To Develop a Functional Definition of Authenticity
One of the important objectives of this study was to develop a functional definition of
authenticity based on past research and theoretical discussion on the meaning and importance of
authenticity in leisure experiences. The literature review suggested that authenticity can be
conceived in different ways. Specifically, it can be seen as objective, i.e., as an object, place, or
person that is genuine or real. It is authentic by the very nature of its inherent qualities or is
defined so by experts like the NPS and historians. On the other hand, authenticity can be seen as
constructed by the tourist (i.e., the subjective approach). This conception holds that an object,
setting, or situation is authentic if it is felt to be so by the tourist and may or may not involve
anything genuine. Finally, the constructive approach suggests that authenticity can be
constructed by culture over time.
It is believed that visitors to a park setting share a desire to feel and experience
authenticity in order to have a genuine park experience, and emphasize the good in their lives
and historic cultures. Visitors want to learn and experience the history of the park. However, in
part because authenticity is still such a fuzzy, debatable concept, this study will not neglect the
received version, or the authenticity “out there” when defining authenticity. For the purposes of
this study, authenticity should be considered to be objective at least to some degree; that is,
objects in a park setting are seen as intrinsically authentic, and are confirmed to be so by NPS
park historians and managers. Thus, we are accepting the views and opinions of the NPS and the
experts as to what is authentic, and also feel that the NPS does a good job of providing an
authentic setting. From a subjective point of view, we would like to know the degree in which
park visitors come to the park seeking to experience authenticity, and whether they judge setting
features and the experience itself as positive or negative based on the strength of their
authenticity motive. If the NPS succeeds in providing a genuine setting, and park visitors feel a
sense of authenticity themselves, then this authenticity is cast back upon the park itself,
perpetuating the notion of an authentic place.
The idea of authenticity described above includes both the objective and subjective
notions. Objective authenticity is provided by the NPS, and subjective authenticity is then felt
by the visitor. It could also be suggested that some constructive authenticity is taking place, as
visitors themselves come to possess the idea that the park is unquestionably authentic and then
pass the idea onto friends and family who come to experience the park.
24
Objective 2: To identify and discuss the reasons or motivations for coming to the park, and
to determine whether achieving an authentic experience is an important reason for visiting
the park among tourists.
The second study objective was to identify and discuss important reasons or motivations
for coming to the park, including the importance of authenticity. Table 3 lists the mean
importance for each motivational item for visiting the park in descending order of importance.
Table 3. Motivations to visit ACHNHP.
Motivation
Mean
To learn more about what happened there
4.27
To learn about the Civil War
4.23
To discover new things
3.74
To feel close to important people/events in our history
3.71
To learn what life was like for people in the mid-1800s
3.47
To teach my family about the Civil War
3.42
To commemorate our country’s heroes
3.40
To develop a sense of pride in my country
3.29
To do something with my family
3.22
To view the scenic beauty
3.14
To experience the peacefulness and serenity there
2.52
To gain a sense of self-pride
2.11
To relax physically
1.91
To do something with my friends
1.87
To meet and talk to new people
1.87
To get away from the stress of everyday life
1.78
It was just a convenient stop on my trip
1.68
To get some exercise
1.60
To re-live pleasant memories of previous visits to the place
1.59
To honor a relative who served there
1.46
To attend a special event
1.42
1 = not at all important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = moderately important,
4 = very important, 5 = extremely important
N
392
390
374
385
374
382
376
378
365
375
359
343
340
316
348
344
333
361
315
327
330
The two reasons for visiting that respondents rated the highest were to learn more about what
happened there (at ACHNHP) (4.27) and to learn about the Civil War (4.23). The next highest
means were for discovering new things (3.74), to feel close to people or events in history (3.71),
and to learn of 1800’s life (3.47). Reasons that were ranked as the least important for visiting the
park were to attend a special event (1.42) and to honor a relative who served there (1.46).
Importance of Authenticity Relative to Other Motives
When developing the list of possible reasons for the park visit, an effort was made with
the help of the NPS reviewers to assess the importance of authenticity. We believed the
following items formed a measure of the construct: to “feel close to people/events in history”
25
and to “learn what life was like for people in the mid-1800s.” Feeling close to people or events
in history implies that the visitor wishes to step back in time to experience another culture or
historical period as it really was. The desire for feeling close to historical people or events
correlates closely with Cohen’s experiential tourist, or the experiencing of the authenticity of the
life of others (Cohen, 1979). A desire to learn what life was like for people in the mid-1800’s
life seemed to reflect a search for authenticity as well. The NPS believes that maintaining the
park in a state as nearly as possible to that of 1865 is one of its highest priorities. In other words,
ACHNHP should represent the genuine life in 1865. Further, as stated in the review of past
literature, the search for knowledge (or a desire to learn) often co-varies with the search for
authenticity (Waller and Lea, 1999).
The next step in the data analysis was to do a factor analysis on the motivational item.
Factor analysis was chosen because we wished to find out which of the reasons for visiting the
park (listed in Table 3) might be highly interrelated and help to describe a construct that could be
called authenticity. Table 4 shows the results of the exploratory factor analysis. Factors were
only chosen if they had an Eigenvalue of 1.00 or above. Also, items were chosen to be part of a
factor if they loaded .6 or above on the factor, and did not load above .5 on any other factor.
Table 4. Results of factor analysis on motivations to visit ACHNHP.
Learning/Authenticity Physical/Psychological
Individual
Personal/
Family
Items
Wellness
Pride
.739
Learn about
what happened
there
.727
Learn about
Civil War
.669
Learn of
1800’s life
.667
Discover new
things
.645
Feel close to
people/events
in history
.771
Importance of
relaxing
.699
Get away from
life stress
.670
Exercise
importance
.745
Honor a
relative who
served there
Gain self-pride
.695
Do something
with family
26
Family
Bonding
.824
Individual
Items
Family
teaching
importance
Eigenvalue
Cumulative %
of variance
explained
Item Mean
Alpha
Learning/Authenticity
Physical/Psychological
Wellness
Personal/
Family
Pride
Family
Bonding
.753
6.69
2.39
1.46
1.19
32
43
50
56
3.89
.7678
1.76
.7394
1.79
.6416
3.32
.6965
Four factors or components were derived from the factor analysis (Table 4). Some of the
motivation items from Table 2 failed to correlate at .6 or above on any of the factors and thus
were discarded from further analyses. The first factor to appear in the analysis appears to be the
one of special concern for this study. The analysis revealed that the two projected authenticity
items, as expected, grouped together into one factor. Also, every item in the survey
questionnaire that involved learning also loaded on this factor. This suggests that for this park
and these visitors, learning is highly connected with the search for authenticity. Therefore, from
this point forward in the study, this factor will be known as Learning/Authenticity, and this
factor will be considered our measure of authenticity. The mean item score for the
Learning/Authenticity factor (3.89) was considerably higher than the other four factors. The
other three factors that emerged from the data analysis appear to represent
physical/psychological wellness (mean = 1.76), personal/family pride (mean = 1.79), and family
bonding (mean = 3.32).
To create an index score for each respondent on each factor, a mean of all the items in a
factor was computed. For example, using each item that comprised the Learning/Authenticity
factor, a score was tallied for each park visitor based on how he or she rated the importance of
each item in the factor. In order to be included, an individual had to give a rating on at least 3 of
the 5 items that make up the factor or that person’s score was not computed. Table 5 shows the
distribution of scores on the authenticity factor.
Table 5. Distribution of Learning/Authenticity scores computed for park visitors.
Score Range
Cumulative Percent of Visitors
1.75-3.40
25
3.40-4.00
50
4.00-4.40
75
4.40-5.00
100
Mean = 3.89; n = 393
While the Learning/Authenticity (or authentic motivation) mean was the highest of the
four motivational factors, it was desirable to test for statistically significant differences. Paired
27
sample t-tests were thus performed comparing the means of authentic motivation versus the three
other motivation factors. The results are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Comparison of motivation for authenticity versus other visit motivations.
Mean
T
Df
Sig.
Factors
SD
Std
Difference
Compared
Error
2.10
.95
.05
41.20*
347
.000
Authenticity vs.
Wellness
Authenticity vs.
2.11
.98
.06
38.22*
316
.000
Personal/Family
Pride
.57
1.18
.06
9.06*
351
.000
Authenticity vs.
Family Bonding
As expected, the authentic motivation mean was significantly higher than the other motivational
means.
Objective 3: To determine the relationship between the desire for authenticity and
satisfaction with site and program conditions and overall quality of the visitor experience.
Experimental Design: A Noise Threat to Authenticity
The first step in addressing Objective 3 of the study involved the experimental
introduction of a threat to the authenticity of the park setting in the form of mechanical noise.
Table 7 shows the numbers of sampled visitors that were recorded as having received the
mechanical noise treatment and those who did not.
Table 7. Number of visitors who received mechanical noise treatment.
Visitor
N
Did not receive treatment
448
Received mechanical noise treatment
113
One type of response to the experimental intervention (i.e., perception of conflict) was
measured on-site on the visitor contact sheet as respondents left the historic village. Two
conflict questions were considered, i.e., “use of mechanized equipment in the historic village”
and “too much noise in the historic village.” Table 8 shows how visitors responded to these two
questions about conflict on-site.
28
Table 8. Distribution of visitors’ rating of the use of mechanized equipment in the historic
village and too much noise in the historic village as a conflict.
Rating
Use of Mechanized Equipment (%) Too Much Noise in Village (%)
Not a problem
512 (93.6)
514 (93.8)
Small problem
22 (4.0
24 (4.4)
Moderate problem
5 (.9)
6 (1.1)
Big problem
8 (1.5)
4 (.7)
547
548
N=
Table 9 shows the t-test results of a test for differences between the treatment and control
group in their rating of the “use of mechanized equipment in the historic village” as a conflict.
Table 9. T-Test of treatment effect on the “use of mechanized equipment in the village”
conflict variable.
Treatment
N
Mean*
T
Sig.
Use of mech.
0 (no)
435
1.05
-5.50
.000
equip in
village
1 (yes)
112
1.30
*conflict ranged from 1 (not a problem) to 4 (big problem)
The mean amount of conflict with the use of mechanized equipment in the village for those who
received the treatment (1.30) differed significantly (p = .000) from those who did not receive
such a treatment (1.05).
Table 10 shows the results of a similar test on the conflict variable “too much noise in the
historic village.”
Table 10. T-Test of treatment effect on the “too much noise in the historic village” conflict
variable.
Treatment
N
Mean
T
Sig.
0 (no)
437
1.06
Too much
noise in the
-3.451
.001
Historic
village
1 (yes)
111
1.20
*conflict ranged from 1 (not a problem) to 4 (big problem)
Again, the mean amount of conflict concerning noise in the historic village for those who
received the treatment (1.20) was significantly higher (p = .001) than those who did not receive
treatment (1.06). The results of these two t-tests show that the field experiment had a statistically
significant impact on the amount of conflict experienced by visitors. Pearson correlations were
then performed between the two conflict variables and the level of authentic motivation variable;
these proved insignificant.
Survey Results: Test of Study Model
The final steps in analyzing the data to address Objective 3 were to test the relationships
between motivation for visiting the park, the importance and performance of various park
29
attributes, and outcomes of the park experience. The study’s model suggested that recreationists
with different motive profiles should react differently to certain environmental features and park
conditions, find different sources of satisfaction, and assign different levels of importance to
management activities (Knopf and Barnes, 1979).
First, an exploratory factor analysis was done using all of the setting importance
attributes (see Methods for an explanation of these attributes) to see which items loaded together
on a single factor while at the same time being distinct from other factors. This was done to
explore structure in the data, to make data analysis more efficient, and to assure adequate
reliability in our factor measurement scales. Again, an item needed to load .6 or above on a
factor and not above .5 on another factor for it to be considered part of a given factor. Eleven
factors emerged from this analysis that accounted for 68% of the variance in explaining visitor
importance ratings. Two of the factors did not qualify as defensible factors by the study’s
standards. One factor included only one item that loaded over .6 (importance of restroom
cleanliness) and it was therefore considered idiosyncratic. Another had no items that loaded at .6
or higher. Three factors seemed irrelevant to our study of authenticity: Facilities for Visitor
Convenience, Hiking Trails, and Highway Traffic. The Facilities for Visitor Convenience items
included the number and location of park benches, the number and location of trashcans, and the
number and location of drinking fountains. The Hiking Trails factor was comprised of the
number and miles of hiking trails, hiking trail conditions, and the availability of hiking trail
information. The Highway Traffic factor consisted of the importance of traffic speed on the
highway through the park and the importance of the number of cars on the highway. The
remaining six factors seemed pertinent to this study and were retained for further analyses (Table
11).
Table 11. Results of factor analysis of setting importance attributes.
Screening
Historic
Individual Items
Ranger Exhibits
Conditions
Talks
.784
Quality of uniformed
ranger programs given
.759
Number of uniformed
ranger programs
available
.671
Number of living
history (ranger in
period clothing)
programs available
.643
Quality of living
history programs given
.828
Quality of “pushbutton” audio programs
at key locations
throughout the park
.791
Number of “pushbutton” audio programs
at key locations
throughout the park
30
Brochures
Historic
Buildings
Individual Items
Number of outdoor
exhibits provided at
key locations
throughout the park
Quality of outdoor
exhibits provided at
key locations
throughout the park
Condition of historic
structures in the village
Condition of historic
village roads
Maintenance of trees
and vegetation in the
park
Screening of sight and
sound of maintenance
and administrative
activities from park
visitors
Screening of park
maintenance buildings
from park visitors
Screening from sight
and noise of state
highway
Availability of park
brochures
Quality of park
brochures
Number of historic
buildings open to the
public
Quality of exhibits
provided at historic
buildings
Eigenvalue
Cumulative % of
variance explained
Factor Mean (1-5)
Alpha
Ranger
Talks
Exhibits
Historic
Conditions
Screening
Brochures
Historic
Buildings
.682
.652
.744
.712
.636
.854
.828
.746
.881
.864
.813
.809
9.47
24
3.48
33
1.79
38
1.64
42
1.36
46
1.24
49
4.05
.7844
3.81
.8561
4.42
.7107
3.28
.8467
4.31
.8883
4.54
.7658
31
The six factors accounted for 49% of the variance in visitors’ reporting of importance attributes.
Also, all had adequate reliability ratings for internal consistency of .71 or higher. The first
factor, ranger talks (mean = 4.05), included the items that dealt with the number and quality of
talks given by uniformed rangers or the living history soldiers. Second, an exhibit factor (mean
= 3.81) emerged that included the items related to the number and quality of audio program
exhibits and outdoor exhibits. The historic conditions factor was of relatively high importance
(mean = 4.42) and included tree maintenance and condition of historic buildings and historic
roads in the park. The fourth factor involved the screening of outside influences on the park
(mean = 3.28), including the highway and maintenance activities. The brochure factor included
the importance of brochure availability and quality (mean = 4.31) and had the highest internal
consistency of any factor (.88). Finally, a historic buildings factor was formed by two items in
the survey: number of historic buildings open to the public and quality of exhibits provided at
historic buildings. This factor had the highest mean importance of the six that emerged (mean =
4.54). Factor mean scores were given to each participant based on his or her individual ratings
of the factor items. For example, three items made up the screening factor. Each individual’s
importance ratings were added and averaged for these items, leaving the person an importance
mean for the screening factor. The grand mean listed for each factor in Table 7 were computed
by adding and averaging across the items of a given factor.
In order to determine if motivation for authenticity related to how visitors rated setting
importance items, a Pearson’s R correlation was performed on the motivation for authenticity
index score and the six factor score indexes for the setting importance items. Table 12 reveals
the results of this correlation analysis.
Table 12. Correlation comparison between the motivation for authenticity and setting
importance factor index scores.
Importance Factor Pearson Correlation
Sig.
N
Ranger Talks
.217
.000
333
Exhibits
.245
.000
310
Historic Conditions
.224
.000
362
Brochures
.270
.000
350
Historic Buildings
.264
.000
358
Screening
.061
.247
360
The results of the analysis suggest that motivation for authenticity correlated significantly the
importance of all setting factor indexes except screening. The positive correlation indicates that
higher authenticity seekers tended to assign greater importance to most factors than did low
authenticity seekers. However, while there was a significant relationship, all such relationships
were quite low.
To begin to assess the relationships between pertinent study variables and setting
performance items, another exploratory factor analysis was performed. The same setting
performance items were included in the factor analysis as had been submitted to the setting
importance factor analysis. The desired result of this analysis was for the same factors to emerge
as for the importance measures, and to be comprised of the same items. Again, eleven factors
accounting for 66% of the variance in visitors’ rating of performance of setting attributes
emerged from the analysis, with six appearing to relate to our study of authenticity. The three
importance factors deemed irrelevant emerged with the same items in the performance factor
32
analysis, and were again removed from further analysis: Facilities for Visitor Convenience,
Hiking Trails, and Highway Traffic. Another performance factor, Restrooms, had two items:
number and location of restrooms and restroom cleanliness. This factor too was dropped from
further analysis. As before, one factor had only one performance item, so it was considered
idiosyncratic and dropped from the analysis. This left the same six factors as in the importance
analysis, with some minor adjustments (to be discussed). Table 13 shows the results of this
analysis.
Table 13. Results of factor analysis of setting performance items.
Exhibits
Individual Items
Historic
Historic
Ranger
Buildings
Conditions
Talks
.762
Quality of exhibits
provided at historic
buildings
.728
Number of historic
buildings open to the
public
.886
Quality of “push-button”
audio programs at key
locations throughout the
park
.880
Number of “push-button”
audio programs at key
locations throughout the
park
.692
Maintenance of trees and
vegetation in the park
.669
Amount of litter along
walking paths in the park
.631
Condition of historic
structures in the village
.631
Condition of historic
village roads
.814
Number of living history
(ranger in period
clothing) programs avail.
.753
Quality of living history
programs given
.732
Quality of uniformed
ranger programs given
.652
Number of uniformed
ranger programs
available
33
Screening
Brochures
Individual Items
Screening of sight and
sound of maintenance
and administrative
activities from park
visitors
Screening of park
maintenance buildings
from park visitors
Screening from sight and
noise of state highway
Quality of park brochures
Availability of park
brochures
Eigenvalue
Cumulative % of
variance explained
Factor Mean
Alpha
Historic
Buildings
Exhibits
Historic
Conditions
Ranger
Talks
Screening
Brochures
.844
.817
.769
.903
.893
7.84
20
3.68
30
2.40
36
2.02
41
1.75
45
1.16
48
4.31
.7223
3.91
.9525
4.53
.7200
4.27
.7793
4.24
.8319
4.38
.8898
The six retained setting performance factors had items that were virtually the same as those for
the setting importance factors. The amount of variance explained by each of the six factors
varied considerably from the importance factors, but their total amount of variance explained
was nearly equal (49% for the importance factors, 48% for the performance factors). The
exhibits factor for the performance items did not include two items that comprised the same
factor for importance: number of outdoor exhibits and quality of outdoor exhibits. However,
these two items achieved a loading of .59 (just below the .6 cut-off) on the exhibit performance
factor and were therefore included. Another difference between the importance and performance
factors was that the historic conditions performance factor included an extra item: the
satisfaction with the amount of litter along park paths. This item was not included in the historic
conditions importance factor, and did not correlate close to .6 with it, so it was dropped from
further analyses. Thus, the same factors and the same items used in the assessment of setting
importance were used in assessments of performance.
The study model suggests that high motivation for authenticity seekers will rate the
importance of authentic park attributes highly, and may be stricter judges of the performance of
the same attributes. Therefore, the next step in the analysis was to test how well the level of
motivation for authenticity and setting importance scores predicted performance. First,
participants were given an index score for each of the six setting importance factors based on
their average response to the items found in the factors. The same was done with the
performance items. Thus, each individual received a setting importance score and a setting
performance score for each of the six factors.
Several regression analyses were then performed with the mechanical noise treatment,
authentic motivation and setting importance factor index scores as independent variables and
34
performance factor index scores as the dependent variables. Table 14 shows the results of these
analyses.
Table 14. Regression analyses for park attribute performance scores by mechanical noise
treatment, authentic motivation, and park attribute importance scores.
Treatment
Importance
Regression
Performance
Authentic
Factor
Factor
Motivation
(B)
(B) (t)
(F)
R-Sq. ( t)
(B) (t)
Ranger Talks
20.5* .179
-1.2
-.066 2.0*
.111
6.8*
.381
Exhibits
7.4*
.080
-.35
-.021 2.0*
.126
3.6*
.225
Historic Conditions
19.8* .143
.43
.021
4.1*
.207
5.4*
.271
Brochures
20.4* .155
.14
.007
2.0*
.104
6.6*
.350
Historic Buildings
116.8* .499
.08
.003
2.1*
.084
17.3*
.679
Screening
3.9*
.033 -2.6* -.137 2.4*
.126
-.114
-.006
*significant at .05 level
Each of the regression analyses performed on the six setting performance index scores were
significant, indicating some correlation with the performance factors. Prediction of the variance
of each performance factor was not high with the exception of historic buildings (50%). Further,
in every case authentic motivation was a significant contributor to the prediction of performance.
However, in all cases except for the screening variable, the setting importance factor was the
most significant contributor in the prediction of setting factor performance. The treatment
variable was only a significant contributor for predicting the performance of screening.
Knowledge
Study Objective 3 also calls for a test of the effect of treatment, motivation for
authenticity, and ratings of importance and performance attributes, on visitor knowledge of the
park story. Table 15 lists the questions (and answers in italics) to each of the knowledge
questions in the survey and shows the percentage of visitors who answered each of the ten
questions correctly. Generally speaking, study participants scored highly on the knowledge quiz
(Tables 15 and 16). In fact, 86% of the participants scored seven correct or greater.
35
Table 15. Ten knowledge questions with percent of visitors answering correctly (n = 388,
mean score = 8.18/10).
Question (answer)
% Correct
The ACHNHP is managed by the National Park Service.
93.5
At Appomattox Court House, who surrendered to whom? General Lee
98.5
surrendered his army to General Grant.
The surrender meeting between General Lee and General Grant that
97.9
occurred at Appomattox Court House took place: in the McLean House.
Which of the following events was the most immediate cause of General
Lee’s decision to surrender at Appomattox Court House? The Union army
71.3
had captured train cars of food and blocked Lee’s planned junction with
General Joe Johnston’s army in North Carolina.
How did the terms of surrender at Appomattox Court House shape the
relationship between the North and South after the war? Surrender terms
85.4
helped to heal the division between the North and South.
The capture of this Virginia city after a long siege by Grant’s army led to
55.3
the retreat of Lee’s army toward Appomattox Court House: Petersburg
With the surrender at Appomattox Court House, all of the above. (the end
86.2
of the Civil War was in sight, the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia
ceased to exist, soldiers of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia
became paroled prisoners of war)
90.1
The terms of surrender at Appomattox Court House called for the
following: all of the above. (Confederate soldiers must pledge not to take
up arms against the United States, Any Confederate soldier who owned a
horse in the army was allowed to take it home with him, Confederate
officers were allowed to keep their swords and side arms, Defeated
Confederate soldiers were allowed to freely go home).
The manner in which the stacking of arms ceremony at Appomattox Court
96.6
House was conducted indicated: respect by the victors for the vanquished.
These buildings in the village of Appomattox Court House were used as
58.7
part of the surrender: the McLean House and the Clover Hill Tavern.
Table 16. Frequency of respondents’ scores on the knowledge quiz.
Number Correct
Number of Visitors (%)
1
1 (.2)
2
0 (0)
3
1 (.2)
4
4 (1)
5
18 (4.6)
6
29 (7.5)
7
59 (15)
8
91 (23)
9
103 (26.5)
10
82 (21.1)
36
Table 17 summarizes the F-test for the stepwise regression analysis that assesses the
relationship between the predictor variables (treatment (Y/N), motivation for authenticity, 6
importance factor variables, and 6 performance factor variables) and scores on the study’s
knowledge quiz.
Table 17. Test of stepwise regression analysis of the relationship between predictor
variables (authentic motivation, treatment (Y/N), six importance setting factor variables,
six performance setting factor variables) and scores on the knowledge quiz.
Regression
F = 3.155*
R-Square= .031
Predictor
Exhibits
Performance
Ranger Talks
Performance
*significant at .05 level
t
-2.45*
Beta
-.201
1.75
.144
The overall regression analysis was significant (F = 3.155). The R-Square was small however, at
.3.1%. This shows that there is some relationship between the independent and dependent
variables but it is very small. Stepwise regression only allowed for one significant predictor
variable: the Exhibits performance factor.
Crowding
In an attempt to predict the feelings of being crowded in the park on the basis of a motive
for authenticity and other study variables, stepwise regression was performed using predictor
variables used in previous analyses (treatment (Y/N) motivation for authenticity, six setting
importance factor scores, and six setting performance factor scores). Table 18 shows that most
visitors (259 or 63%) did not feel at all crowded during their visit to the park. No one felt
extremely crowded.
Table 18. Visitors’ perceptions of crowding at ACHNHP.
Rating of Crowdedness
Number of Visitors (%)
1 (not at all crowded)
259 (62.6)
2
76 (18.4)
3 (slightly crowded)
42 (10.1)
4
8 (2.0)
5
14 (3.4)
6 (moderately crowded)
12 (3.0)
7
2 (.5)
8
1 (.25)
9 (extremely crowded)
0 (0)
Mean = 1.77; n = 414
Table 19 shows the results of the stepwise regression on perceptions of crowding. All of
the same predictor variables used before in attempting to predict knowledge were used again.
37
Table 19. Test of the stepwise regression analysis between the predictor variables
(motivation for authenticity, treatment, six setting importance factor variables, six setting
performance factor variables) and perceptions of crowding.
Regression
F = 7.305*
R-Square= .067
Predictor
Screening Performance
Treatment
*significant at .05 level
t
-3.57*
-1.77
Beta
-.244
-.121
While the overall regression was significant, the relationships among variables were again weak.
Stepwise regression revealed that the best variables used to predict perceptions of crowding were
the Screening performance factor and the treatment variable. Still, these only account for 6.7%
of the variability in crowding perceptions. Further, only the Screening performance factor was
statistically significant.
Conflict
As reported above, conflict was measured twice, once on the contact sheet and again on
the mailback survey. Looking again at the two measures of conflict on the contact sheet,
regression analyses were performed using the treatment variable and the authentic motivation
variable as predictors of the extent that “use of mechanized equipment in the historic village”
and “too much noise in the historic village” were seen as conflict. Table 20 summarizes the first
of the two regression analyses.
Table 20. Test of the regression analysis between the predictor variables (motivation for
authenticity, treatment (Y/N)) and conflict with the use of mechanized equipment in the
historic village.
Regression
F = 4.387*
R-Square= .022
Predictor
Authentic Motivation
Treatment
*significant at .05 level
t
.667
2.85*
Beta
.034
.144
The regression was significant (p = .013) but the R-Square very small (2.2%). Also, there was
no significant correlation between the authentic motivation variable and the dependent variable.
Thus, the small amount of explained variance in conflict was due to the treatment.
Table 21 summarizes the results for the second regression analysis of treatment and
motivation for authenticity in a perception of “too much noise in the historic village.”
38
Table 21. Test of the regression analysis between the predictor variables (treatment (Y/N),
motivation for authenticity) and conflict due to too much noise in the historic village.
Regression
F = 3.772*
R-Square= .019
Predictor
Authentic Motivation
Treatment
*significant at .05 level
T
1.10
2.46*
Beta
.056
.124
The regression analysis was significant (F = 3.77) but the R-Square again minimal (1.9%).
Again the authentic motivation variable was not significant in the regression analysis. The
treatment variable did significantly contribute to predicting conflict with noise in the village (t =
2.46).
The feeling of conflict was also framed as a yes/no question on the mailback survey.
Table 22 shows the frequency of visitors expressing feelings of conflict/no conflict. About 88%
of visitors to the park felt no conflict (Table 21).
Table 22. Respondents who felt conflict with other uses or users while at the park.
Felt Conflict with other Uses or Users
Number of Visitors
No
357 (88%)
Yes
50 (12%)
N = 407
Another regression analysis was performed in an effort to test for a relationship between
previously used predictor variables (treatment (Y/N), motivation for authenticity, setting
importance factors, setting performance factors) and the dependent variable, “feelings of conflict
with uses or users in the park.” Table 23 shows the test results.
Table 23. Test of the stepwise regression analysis between the predictor variables
(treatment (Y/N), motivation for authenticity, six setting importance factor variables, six
setting performance factor variables) and feelings of conflict with other uses or users.
Regression
F = 3.538*
R-Square= .112
Predictor
Authentic Motivation
Treatment
Screening Performance
Brochures Importance
Screening Importance
Historic Condition Importance
Ranger Talks Importance
*significant at .05 level
t
1.51
1.15
-3.52*
-1.42
1.56
-1.67
1.22
Beta
.110
.079
-.241
-.105
.114
-.131
.090
While the regression was significant (F = 3.5), the R-Square was small (11.2%). Only the
Screening performance factor proved significant in predicting perceived conflict. The negative t
39
and Beta values indicate that for those visitors for whom screening performed poorly, conflict
was more likely perceived.
Overall Satisfaction of the Park Experience
The final output to be assessed is overall satisfaction of the experience. Generally,
visitors to ACHNHP reported being very satisfied. Table 24 shows the descriptive statistics of
visitor satisfaction.
Table 24. Visitors’ ratings of their park experience.
Experience Rating
Number of Visitors (%)
1 (very poor)
1 (.2)
2
0 (0)
3
2 (.5)
4 (average)
17 (4)
5
43 (10.4)
6
165 (39.8)
7 (very good)
186 (44.9)
Mean score = 6.23; n = 414
The previous regression analyses involved dependent variables that were all first order
outputs (see Figure 2). The final objective was to test the entire model, and determine whether
or not satisfaction of the park visit could be shaped by all model variables. In this scenario, all of
the previously used independent variables: treatment (Y/N), motivation for authenticity, setting
importance variables, and setting performance variables were again used. In addition, the first
order outcomes or outputs of the park experience were used as independent variables in an
attempt to better predict overall satisfaction. In this case, knowledge of the park story,
perceptions of crowding, and feelings of conflict became predictor variables. The stepwise
method was again used to see which of the independent variables best predicted satisfaction.
Table 25 shows the results of this analysis.
Table 25. Test of the stepwise regression analysis between the predictor variables
(treatment (Y/N), motivation for authenticity, six setting importance factor variables, six
setting performance factor variables) and overall satisfaction of the experience.
Regression
F = 11.45*
R-Square= .228
Predictor
Ranger Talks performance
Historic Conditions performance
Knowledge
Historic Buildings importance
Crowding
*significant at .05 level
T
3.06*
2.36*
1.92
3.22*
-1.36
Beta
.212
.169
.122
.218
-.087
Overall enjoyment could best be predicted using five variables (Table 25). The overall
regression was significant (F = 11.45) and 22.8% of the variability in overall enjoyment can be
40
attributed to the variation in the five variables represented. The Ranger Talks performance
variable, Historic Conditions performance variable, and Historic Buildings importance variable
were significant predictors. Knowledge gain was nearly significant at the .05 level (p = .06).
Finally, while the Crowding variable was not significant at the .05 level, (p = .174), the negative
direction suggests the expected relationship between crowding and enjoyment.
Summary of Results
Authenticity proved to be a significantly higher motivation for visiting the park than
other motives: wellness, personal/family pride, and family bonding. Items included in the factor
that we named “motivation for authenticity” included learning items. This seemed congruent
with the literature, as desire for authenticity and learning have been shown to covary.
The treatment variable (mechanical noise intrusion) significantly increased conflict as
measured on-site. However, conflict measured on the mailback survey was not best predicted
due to the treatment variable; rather, the screening setting performance factor best predicted
conflict. The less well screening from sight and noise of the state highway, screening of park
maintenance buildings, and screening of sight and sound of maintenance and administrative
activities performed for a visitor, the more conflict the visitor reported.
Six setting importance and performance factors were identified: Ranger Talks, Exhibits,
Historic Conditions, Screening, Brochures, and Historic Buildings. It was found that setting
importance factors correlated significantly with motivation for authenticity. However, the .2 to
.3 range of correlation meant only a slight relationship an little value in prediction (and none for
the screening importance factor, which did not correlate significantly). When we regressed
motivation for authenticity, treatment, and setting importance factors on setting performance
factors, significant relationships were determined. For one, the motivation for authenticity was a
positive contributor to all setting performance factors. Further, the importance setting factor was
the best predictor of the comparable setting performance factor for all factors except in the case
of screening. For the screening performance factor, treatment was found to be significant in a
negative direction, meaning the screening attributes were rated worse when the treatment was
present. Treatment was not significant in the other regression analyses on setting performance
factors.
Predicting knowledge scores based on the study’s input variables was unsuccessful.
Most all visitors scored highly on the 10-question quiz (82% average score). The R-square value
(explained variance) was very small, indicating little predictive ability of knowledge gain given
the model’s independent variables. Since most all respondents did well on the quiz, there was
little variation in the knowledge variable to be explained with the model.
Variation in Crowding scores also proved difficult to predict. Over 90% of visitors felt
slightly crowded or less. Again, however, the screening performance factor was significant in
predicting crowding. As screening ratings were rated to perform poorly, visitors tended to report
a greater perception of crowding.
Finally, an attempt was made to see if satisfaction could be predicted using all predictor
variables in the study’s model. Little variation existed among visitors in terms of satisfaction:
the mean satisfaction score was 6.23 out of 7, and 85% of visitors rated their experience to be 6
or higher on a 7-point Likert scale. However, the best R-Square value of the study (23%) was
obtained from regressing the study’s predictor variables upon satisfaction. Generally, the higher
the performance of the Ranger Talks factor, the performance of the Historic Conditions factor,
41
and the importance of the Historic Buildings factor, the higher the resulting satisfaction. The
items comprising these setting importance and performance factors seem to reflect authenticity.
However, motivation for authenticity did not prove to be a significant contributor to satisfaction
when regressed with other variables. Further, the Knowledge variable was nearly significant (p
= .06) in predicting satisfaction.
In sum, motivation for authenticity correlated with setting importance items, but once
other factors were applied in the various analyses, authentic motivation became mostly
insignificant. Setting importance and performance items may have mediated the effect of
authentic motivation on the output variables.
42
Discussion and Conclusion
Study Findings
Central to this study was the concept of authenticity. The first objective was to review
the literature on authenticity as it pertains to recreation and leisure, and then to formulate a
functional definition to be applied to the current study. Researchers have conceptualized
authenticity in several different ways. Early researchers conceptualized authenticity for tourists
in an objective fashion; in other words, historical objects are inherently authentic because experts
define them as such. However, many current researchers characterize authenticity from a
constructive or subjective theoretical perspective, in which ordinary individuals or culture plays
a role in determining the authenticity of a place, time, or feeling.
For the purposes of this research, the authentic setting was defined by NPS managers and
history experts and experienced by park visitors; in essence, combining objective and subjective
approaches. A visitor likely comes to the park seeking to experience authenticity, feel authentic,
and have an experience conducive to learning and appreciation of the past. The NPS works hard
to provide an authentic setting; this setting is then experienced by the visitor, and any authentic
experience had by the visitor reinforces the perceived authenticity of the park. Put simply, there
is a give and take relationship between the visitor and the NPS, and also objective and subjective
authenticity.
Using a survey questionnaire, we operationalized authenticity by using motivational
items. This process also involved the use of factor analysis to group items together to form one
construct: a factor that we entitled “authenticity.” If visitors rated motivation for authenticity
highly, then it was hypothesized that they would rate the importance of authentic park attributes
highly and also be stricter judges of the performance of authentic park attributes.
Study findings revealed that the desire for authenticity seemed to be highly correlated
with the desire to learn about the park, which is consistent with the Waller and Lea study (1999).
Table 3 (p. 27) revealed that our hypothesized learning motivation items had the three highest
means, followed by two items which we initially felt dealt more with authenticity, and these five
items together became our Authenticity factor. Further, this factor was found to be a
significantly higher motivational factor than the three others studied: wellness, personal/family
pride, and family bonding). At ACHNHP, visitors are highly motivated to learn and find
authenticity.
The results also indicated that motivation for authenticity significantly correlated with all
setting importance factors measured (ranger talks, exhibits, historic conditions, brochures,
historic buildings) except for the importance of screening. Each of these significant correlations
was positive, indicating that the higher the desire for authenticity, the greater the importance of
these park attributes to the authentic experience. In contrast to the anticipated positive
correlation between the authenticity motive and importance of seeting attributes, a positive
correlation between motivation for authenticity and performance of these six setting factors
(Table 14, p. 37) was not expected. However, our analysis indicated that visitors rated setting
performance factors higher as the motivation for authenticity increased, with the exception of
screening.
A significant finding of this study was that authenticity was found to be highly important
to visitors, and it correlated positively with importance of many park attributes. However, as the
analysis proceeded to include output variables like knowledge, crowding, conflict, and
satisfaction, the authentic motivation variable seemed to become less significant. For example,
43
in a stepwise regression to predict knowledge of the park story, authentic motivation did not
make a meaningful contribution. Rather, the exhibits performance index was the only significant
contributor, and the R-square value was very small (3.1%). In the perceptions of crowding and
conflict analyses, only the screening performance factor correlated significantly with the
dependent variables. Satisfaction was best correlated with the performance of ranger talks and
historic conditions, and the importance of historic buildings.
The rating of the screening importance factor was the only setting importance factor that
did not correlate with the motivation for authenticity (Table 12, p. 34). However, scores on the
motivation for authenticity factor did have independent and significant correlations with
performance of the screening factor. The screening performance factor also showed significant
correlations with crowding and conflict. Since motivation for authenticity was found to correlate
with screening performance, perhaps screening performance explained the variance in crowding
and conflict that would have otherwise been explained by the motivation for authenticity. This
reasoning could justify the authenticity motivation not significantly correlating with the output
variables.
In summary, the study showed that authenticity was indeed an important motivation for
visitors to the park. Also, authenticity was found to correlate with setting importance factors,
which was congruent with our hypotheses. However, our findings did not significantly support
the expected relationships between authenticity motivation and output variables (knowledge,
crowding, conflict, and satisfaction).
Implications for Management
Park management should consider that most feedback from visitors to ACHNHP was
very positive. Because of this, the NPS should simply “keep up the good work.” It was clear too
that both learning and authenticity were important, perhaps the most important, motivators when
visitors decide to come to the park. In our study, the mean score for authentic motivation was
3.89. The other motivating factors (Table 4, p. 28-29) were family bonding (3.32),
personal/family pride (1.79) and physical/psychological wellness (1.76). Atmospheres
conducive to learning and maintaining the feel of the historic setting should be carefully
protected.
Another implication is that authenticity relates to how visitors rate the importance of park
setting attributes (Table 12, p. 34) with the exception of screening importance. As desire for
authenticity increases, so does the importance of park setting attributes. Since authenticity is
such an important motivation for visitors, park management should work to maintain the genuine
feel of the setting as well as the integrity of setting attributes.
Authenticity did not correlate well with dependent variables of interest: knowledge,
crowding, conflict and satisfaction. Screening performance tended to best correlate with
crowding and conflict output variables, perhaps overriding any possible effects authenticity
might have had. The screening factor created appeared to be an anomaly. It had the lowest
mean of all setting importance factors (3.28) but a relatively high performance mean (4.27).
Also, it was the only setting factor that had no correlation between ratings of importance and
performance, and yet the screening performance factor related best with visitors’ ratings of
crowding and conflict. These results could suggest that the successful performance of the park in
screening out modern-day intrusions into the authentic scene better explains visitors’ perceptions
of crowding and conflict than does the motivation for authenticity variable itself can. Managers
44
should therefore continue to keep maintenance sheds, administrative activities, highways, and
other modern intrusions screened from visitors as much as possible.
Implications for Future Research
Findings in this study were not solid and clear, and did not yield entirely expected results.
Possible reasons for this are discussed below, and should be considered for future research
involving authenticity and parks.
The Study Model
A model of leisure behavior based on the work of Driver and Tocher (1970) was used in
this study. This motivation-driven, goal-oriented model is only one interpretation of how the
leisure experience unfolds. It implies rational decision-making on the part of tourists, firm and
fixed motivations and expectations, and “snapshot” outputs. Other researchers have proposed
that there is nothing essential in the human makeup, especially in leisure situations, that
predisposes one to act rationally (More, 1999). Our study assumed that visitors had static ratings
concerning motivations for visiting the park, and that people flowed sequentially through the
experience to outcomes with no changing expectations. Furthermore, the Driver and Tocher
model casts the process by which leisure unfolds as largely irrelevant, and the products or “traitlike” outcomes become the target of study (Stewart, 1998). In our study, measurements of
inputs, throughputs, and outputs were all taken well after the fact. Perhaps a more dynamic,
emergent, process-oriented approach would have been more appropriate than the model used.
Also, the Driver and Tocher model was created and used by researchers searching for a
design that could be of use to land managers rather than simply analyzing the leisure process for
its own sake (More, 1999; Stewart, 1998). The main goal of the study reported here was to
provide managers with descriptive statistics of the park visitors (i.e., what they sought, what
were their preferences, what was their evaluation of setting attributes, what did they learn, what
problems did they encounter, and were they satisfied). It was not to carefully test a model of the
intricacies of authenticity and leisure experiences. Therefore, flaws in our test of the model itself
may exist, and no matter how valid and reliable the measures of constructs, the results might not
have been as expected.
Validity Measures of the Constructs
Visitor Homogeneity
An issue related to performing various analyses in the study was that most of our
predictor variables as well as the dependent variables varied very little. Generally speaking,
visitors were relatively homogeneous in terms of park experiences sought and attained. A
majority rated overall experience highly, and very few experienced conflict in the park.
Knowledge of the park story was found to be high among almost all visitors as well, and almost
no one felt any level of crowding. The homogeneity of park visitors likely lowered the
predictive capability of the study’s regression analyses. Moreover, visitors were not segregated
in terms of participation in various park activities. Whether or not a visitor experienced a living
45
history performance might play a factor in whether or not the mechanical noise treatment
affected the experience, and this was not analyzed.
Authenticity
Perhaps the most significant limitation of our study, and one that may have reduced the
clarity of study findings, was that nowhere in the study were participants asked if they felt or
found authenticity. A motivation factor was created from items that we hypothesized to relate to
authenticity, but this factor and its items may not have been called “authenticity” by our study
subjects. Also, the factor that we called authenticity may represent something different to
visitors than it does to NPS experts. As previously mentioned, a common view of authenticity
today is that it is found in the eye of the beholder. Visitors were never asked which motivation
items and park condition attributes dealt with authenticity. However, the construct validity of the
authenticity measure was apparently increased because a quite high correlation between
authenticity and learning was found. Past studies (Waller and Lea, 1999) have shown a
correlation between learning and authenticity, thus increasing our confidence in our measure of
the construct. Further, evidence of the validity of our measure of authenticity likely increased
when the motivation for authenticity was found to correlate positively with all setting importance
factors, except for screening (Table 12, p. 34). But while there was some validity established in
our authenticity measures, the overall validity may still be questioned.
Other Study Constructs
Based on the conceptual model (Figure 2, p. 21) developed in this study, analyses were
performed to see how motivation for authenticity and the on-site experiences (input variables)
affected aspects of the output (knowledge, crowding, conflict, satisfaction). This involved the
operationalizing of several constructs other than authenticity.
The importance and performance of many park attributes were measured and factor
analyzed to develop reliable scales of common setting attributes. Several factors emerged (see
Results, pp.32-36), but only six importance and performance factors were kept for further use as
study variables, as only they seemed to pertain to authenticity. We decided to keep only those
factors that might add convergent validity to our measure of the authenticity construct, and did
not use items and factors with which authenticity might correlate negatively (i.e., divergent
validity). Future research might keep factors that add both convergent and divergent validity to
the construct.
The output variables (knowledge gain, perceived crowding, conflict, and overall
satisfaction) were measured using a small number of survey questions. The 10-question multiple
choice knowledge quiz was used to assess knowledge levels among visitors. The range and
number of questions gave the test reliability, and park historians reviewing the questions seemed
to provide good test validity. However, one respondent may answer the quiz alone (as we
desired) while some respondents may have employed the help of friends or family members.
Also, due to the unexpectedly high scores by visitors on the quiz (Tables 15 and 16, p. 38), little
prediction of scores was possible. Put simply, the quiz was too easy. Future knowledge quizzes
should be pre-tested to determine the knowledge levels of visitors before entering the park and to
assure enough difficulty in the test to provide a range of responses.
46
The perception of crowding was measured using one question. A problem with this is
that one question is not typically a completely reliable or valid measure of a construct. Also,
authenticity did not correlate with perceptions of crowding, either positively or negatively;
perhaps because almost no one felt crowded. It is conceivable that visitor reports of crowding
are not affected by motivation for authenticity or the importance and performance of park
attributes, at least at low visitation levels. Future studies should employ multiple items to
measure crowding. Also, these studies should attempt to gather data from parks with many
levels of use density.
Conflict was measured both on the contact sheet on-site and the mailback survey, and
most visitors reported little or no conflict. The on-site analysis involved testing whether the
mechanical noise treatment and the degree of motivation for authenticity could be used to predict
conflict. The park visitors who received the treatment reported a higher degree of conflict than
those who did not; authenticity did not correlate significantly with conflict. The mailback survey
measure of conflict (measured weeks after the visit to the park) did not correlate with motivation
for authenticity or any setting attribute except screening performance, perhaps owing to the fact
that more variables were used in prediction but also because visitors may have forgotten any
conflict weeks after the experience. Conflict is likely better reported on-site, immediately after
an intrusive incident, and future research should emphasize this.
Congruent with findings of a study at Gettysburg National Historical Park by Knopf and
Barnes (1980), visitors at ACHNHP were highly satisfied with the experience and park
management, so the nature of visitor response to satisfaction was largely skewed towards the
positive. This finding seems reasonable because leisure activities are freely chosen by the
individual. But this skewed distribution likely makes predicting satisfaction difficult.
Furthermore, asking about satisfaction with one particular park experience weeks after the visit
may provide invalid measures, especially if the respondent was in the middle of a long vacation
involving many park stops such as occurred among many ACHNHP visitors. Also, as with
crowding, satisfaction was measured with one item. Again, using one question to measure a
construct has possible negative effects on the reliability of the measurement. Future studies
should include multiple satisfaction items, and if possible, measure satisfaction on-site.
Research Design
Several problematic issues of the study may be related to the research design. To the
extent that we indeed measured authenticity, it involved the measurement of motivational items
weeks after the park visit. Problems are associated with asking people long after their visit to
recall reasons for their visit and for their pre-visit setting importance ratings (Manfredo, Driver,
and Tarrant, 1996). Motivations and setting importance questions should ideally be asked before
the visit to the park. Then visitors could be asked to evaluate setting performance upon leaving
the park.
In terms of the field experiment, the mechanical noise intrusion was the only
experimental variable (treatment) applied to the study, and the number of visitors that received
the treatment was significantly lower than the amount of visitors who did not. Intrusions to the
park setting can include many things, like heat and insects (which were often reported by
visitors) and the disruptive use of cell phones during living history presentations. None of these
variables were accounted for in the study. Furthermore, there were different levels at which the
treatment might be experienced (i.e., a power lawnmower going near a living history
presentation versus a tree trimmer working in an area farther away), but the treatment variable
47
was operationalized as a yes/no variable. In summation, it was impossible to determine how
close a visitor came in contact with the intrusion and/or how long the visitor was in the park
during the “more intrusive” moments of the treatment. Future research that includes a noise
treatment should attempt to have a fixed level of noise and intrusion, making it a more controlled
variable.
Expanding the Model
In performing our research at a historical park like ACHNHP, authenticity immediately
seemed like a good concept to study. However, in part because of the difficulty in defining and
framing authenticity for research purposes, perhaps the study model should be expanded to
include other constructs when looking at what shapes authentic leisure experiences.
Perhaps an overlooked research concept is that of recreation specialization. Recreation
specialization is a measure of intensity of involvement in a leisure activity used to explore
variation among activity participants’ preferences, motivations, attitudes, and behavior (Scott
and Shafer, 2001). The concept of specialization began with Bryan’s study of fly fisherman
(1977). In effect he was attempting to measure “within” activity variability to see if trout
fishermen fit into the conceptual framework of the specialization process, and provide natural
resource managers a framework for understanding diversity among outdoor recreationists (Scott
and Shafer, 2001). The specialization construct suggests a process of progression along a
continuum in behavior, preferences, and attitudes as an individual becomes more specialized or
involved. Much of the literature concerning specialization seems to relate to authenticity or the
search for something authentic.
When characterizing specialization as a process, there is the underlying assumption that
progression is directed towards an “authentic” level of involvement (Scott and Shafer, 2001).
The further a recreationist is along the specialization continuum and the more experience in an
activity he or she has, the greater his or her specificity of preferred outcomes, and the greater the
desire for authentic experience. (Scott and Shafer, 2001). Increased specialization also means
increased orientation to skill development and the acquiring of additional knowledge. This may
also mean a concern for authenticity and historical accuracy (Scott and Shafer, 2001). Further,
specialization can be used to explain or predict variation in perceived crowding and motivations
(Virden and Schreyer, 1988).
Since the study reported here attempted to relate authenticity to setting and experience
evaluations, perhaps specialization could have been included in the model and measured. A
measure of specialization may have proved to moderate the relationship between authenticity and
preferences for management. Historical park visitors who have a high amount of specialization
may rate preferences and outcomes more critically than the lesser-specialized individuals.
Virden and Schreyer (1988) found that highly specialized hikers were more extreme in their
negative responses to setting variables than novices. A specialization variable could have been
used as an additional independent predictor of setting preferences and experience outcomes in
the study’s model, or it could have been used to add validity to our measure of authenticity.
Highly specialized visitors should be high authenticity seekers, and vice-versa.
ACHNHP and other historical parks attract a large number of reenactors. This subgroup
of visitors would seem to be the most specialized of all historical park visitors and would be
worth studying. Specialization is defined in terms of commitment and involvement, and
reenactors seem both highly committed and involved. Historical park visitors could have been
placed along a continuum of specialization, and presumably reenactors would fall on the highly
48
specialized end. A qualitative approach involving pre-test research focused on reenactors
themselves may have been beneficial to bridge the gap between the NPS historians and experts
and the visiting public. In other words, a different perspective (one which may combine the
authenticity conceptions of experts and the general public) may have been useful in refining our
notion of authenticity.
Similar in concept to specialization is enduring involvement. Commitment is a key word
related to both specialization and enduring involvement. Other components of enduring
involvement are importance of the leisure pursuit, enjoyment, self-expression, and centrality
(McIntyre, 1989). Levels of enduring involvement may follow the same path along a continuum
like recreation specialization. The best indicators of enduring involvement—self-expression and
centrality—when rated highly, are indicative of more specialized, highly-involved recreationists.
Some measure of self-expression or centrality to one’s life might have helped in the analysis; the
more central historical parks are to one’s life, perhaps the more authenticity is important. Again,
like with the specialization construct, involvement might play a role in mediating the relationship
between motivation for authenticity and various outcomes. Another possibility is that various
aspects of future research should focus on evaluating the variables that moderate relationships
between involvement and leisure experiences (Havitz and Dimanche, 1999). One of these
variables might be authenticity.
In addition, the construct of “serious leisure” seems relevant. Serious leisure is the
pursuit of an amateur, hobbyist, or volunteer activity that participants find so substantial that
typically they devote their life centered on acquiring and expressing its special skills, knowledge,
and experiences (Stebbins, 1999). In general, the social friendship units that form around a given
serious leisure activity, like bicycling for example, are socially marginal and uncontrollable
(Stebbins, 1999). This means that they form a societal group outside the norm, and their leisure
becomes their passion. Again, Civil War reenactors come to mind as a group involved in serious
leisure: they travel from park to park in different battalions, and many likely center their lives
around developing the knowledge and skills to authentically reenact the past. It may have been
useful to study this group’s “unique ethos” or social world as a subcategory of park visitors to
better understand authenticity, motivation for authenticity, and their relationship to setting and
program preferences and evaluations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, authenticity did not perform entirely the way we hypothesized. It was
highly important for visitors, and had some effect on how visitors rated the importance of park
setting items. But park visitors were highly satisfied, experienced little crowding and conflict,
and were highly knowledgeable. This lack of variation in key outcome variables likely lowered
the “predictive” power of the authenticity construct. Future researchers should consider the
study implications discussed above.
Static models might give way to more emergent methods of study. Surveying visitors
before and after the park experience might serve to get near real-time data, instead of asking
questions entirely after the experience. Also, deep, meaningful insight obtained through
qualitative research might help to uncover the intricacies of a construct like authenticity.
Researchers may want to consider administering focus groups during the study planning
and research design phase. Meetings with NPS staff, interested public, and specialized groups
like reenactors might help serve to reach more of a consensus on a concept like authenticity.
49
Each group of people may have insight to give on formulating a good construct for analysis.
Also, studies that involve assessing knowledge levels could make use of a focus group in order
to pretest the questions for content and difficulty level.
In terms of data analysis techniques, it may be beneficial for researchers to include
factors or variables in a study whether or not they might contribute to convergent or divergent
validity. Future studies should use several items to measure such a construct as crowding and
satisfaction, rather than one item alone, to increase reliability.
Finally, future studies about authenticity might want to consider examining related
concepts like specialization, enduring involvement, and serious leisure. Adding these constructs
for analysis could help as independent predictors for experience outcomes that proved difficult to
attribute to one construct alone, like authenticity. Further, utilizing a concept like specialization
could help to assess the validity of measures to the level of authenticity desired by visitors, since
specialized recreationists are believed to seek high levels of authenticity.
50
References
Bruner, Edward M. 1989. Tourism, creativity, and authenticity. Studies in Symbolic
Interaction, 10, 109-114.
Bryan, H. 1977. Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: The case of trout
fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research, 9, 174-187.
Buist, L. J, and T. A. Hoots. 1982. Recreation opportunity spectrum approach to resource
planning. Journal of Forestry, February, 84-86.
Cohen, Erik. 1979. A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13, 179-201.
Cohen, Erik. 1988. Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
15, 371-386.
Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley
and Sons.
Driver, B. L., P. J. Brown, G. H. Stankey, and T. G. Gregoire. 1987. The ROS planning system:
evolution, basic concepts, and research needed. Leisure Sciences, 9, 201-212.
Driver, B. L., P.J. Brown, and G. L. Peterson. 1991. Benefits of leisure. State College, PA:
Venture Publishing.
Driver, B. L., and S. R. Tocher. 1970. Toward a behavioral interpretation of recreational
engagements with implications for planning. In B. L. Driver (Ed) Elements of recrreation
planning. Ann Arbor, WI: University of Michigan.
Edensor, Tim. 2000. Staging tourism: tourists as performers. Annals of Tourism Research, 27,
322-344.
Ehrentraut, Adolf. 1993. Heritage authenticity and domestic tourism in Japan. Annals of
Tourism Research, 20, 262-278.
Erickson, Rebecca J. 1995. The importance of authenticity for self and society. Symbolic
Interaction, 2, 121-144.
Ewert, Alan. 1993. Differences in the level of motive importance based on trip outcome,
experience level, and group type. Journal of Leisure Research, 25, 4, 335-349.
Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Gramann, J. 1999. The effect of mechanical noise and natural sound on visitor experiences in
units of the national park system. Social Science Research Review, 1, 1, 1-16.
51
Halewood, Chris, and Kevin Hannam. 2001. Viking heritage tourism authenticity and
commodification. Annals of Tourism Research, 28, 565-580.
Hammitt, W. E., R. D. Bixler, and F. P. Noe. 1996. Going beyond importance-performance
analysis to analyze the observance-influence of park impacts. Journal of Park and Recreation
Adminstration, 14, 45-62.
Havitz, M.E., and F. Dimanche. 1999. Leisure involvement revisited: drive properties and
paradoxes. Journal of Leisure Research, 31, 122-149.
Heywood, J. L. 1987. Experience preferences of participants in different types of river
recreation groups. Journal of Leisure Research, 19. 1, 1-12.
Heywood, J. L., J. E. Christensen, and G. H. Stankey. 1991. The relationship between
biophysical and social setting factors in the recreation opportunity spectrum. Leisure Sciences,
13, 239-246.
Hughes, G. 1995. Authenticity in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 22, 781-803.
Hull, R. B. Mood as a product of leisure: causes and consequences. In Driver, B. L., P. J.
Brown, and G. L. Peterson (Eds), Benefits of Leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. 1999. Motivational foundations of leisure. In Jackson, E. L., and T. L. Burton
(Eds), Leisure Studies: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century. State College, PA: Venture
Publishing.
Jacob, G., and R. Schreyer. 1980. Conflict in outdoor recreation: a theoretical perspective.
Journal of Leisure Research, 12, 4, 368-380.
Janiskee, Robert L. 1996. Historic houses and special events. Annals of Tourism Research, 23,
398-414.
Knopf, R. C., G. L. Peterson, and E. C. Leatherberry. 1983. Motives for recreational river
floating: relative consistency across settings. Leisure Sciences, 5, 231-255.
Knopf, R. C., and J. D. Barnes. 1980. Determinants of satisfaction with a tourism resource: a
case study of visitors to Gettysburg National Military Park. Tourism Marketing and
Management Issues, 217-237.
Krugler, John D. 1991. Behind the public presentations: research and scholarship at living
history museums of early America. The William and Mary Quarterly, 48, 347-386.
Littrell, M. A., L. F. Anderson, and P. J. Brown. 1993. What makes a craft souvenir authentic?
Annals of Tourism Research, 20, 197-215.
52
MacCannell, Dean. 1999. The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, CA: University of California Press, Ltd.
MacCannell, Dean. 1973. Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist settings.
American Journal of Sociology, 79, 589-603.
Manfredo, M. J., B. L. Driver, and M. A. Tarrant. 1996. Measuring leisure motivation: a metaanalysis of the recreation experience preference scales. Journal of Leisure Research, 28, 188213.
Mannell, Roger. 1999. Leisure experience and satisfaction. In Jackson, E. L., and T. L. Burton
(Eds), Leisure Studies: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century. State College, PA: Venture
Publishing.
McIntosh, A. J., and Richard C. Prentice. 1999. Affirming authenticity: consuming cultural
heritage. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 589-612.
McIntyre, N. 1989. The personal meaning of participation: enduring involvement. Journal of
Leisure Research, 21, 167-179.
More, T. A., and W. F. Kuentzel. 1999. Five reasons to have reservations about benefits-based
management.
National Park Service. 1977. General Management Plan: Appomattox Court House National
Historical Park. VA: United States Department of the Interior.
Paffenberger, R. S., R. T. Hyde, and A. Dow. 1991. Health benefits of physical activity. In
Driver, B. L., P. J. Brown, and G. L. Peterson (Eds), Benefits of Leisure. State College, PA:
Venture Publishing.
Pahl, Ronald H. 1994. Forsooth! An exploration into living history: history immersion and
history museums and theaters as effective methods for teaching history. The Social Studies, 85,
21-24.
Roggenbuck, J.W., D. R. Williams, and C. T. Bobinski. 1992. Public-private partnership to
increase commercial tour guides’ effectiveness as nature interpreters. Journal of Park and
Recreation Adminstration, 10, 2, 41-50.
Roggenbuck, J. W., R. J. Loomis, and J. V. Dagostino, 1991. The learning benefits of leisure. In
Driver, B. L., P. J. Brown, and G. L. Peterson (Eds), Benefits of Leisure. State College, PA:
Venture Publishing.
Salamone, Frank A. 1997. Authenticity in tourism: the San Angel Inns. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24, 305-321.
53
Scott, D., and C. S. Shafer. 2001. Recreation specialization: a critical look at the construct.
Journal of Leisure Research, 33, 319-343.
Silver, Ira. 1993. Marketing authenticity in third world countries. Annals of Tourism Research,
20, 302-318.
Starn, Randolph. 2002. Authenticity and historic preservation: towards an authentic history.
History of the Human Sciences, 15, 1-16.
Stebbins, R. 1999. Serious leisure. In Jackson, E. L., and T. L. Burton (Eds), Leisure Studies:
Prospects for the Twenty-First Century. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Stover, Kate F. 1989. Is it real history yet? An update on living history museums. Journal of
American Culture, 12, 13-17.
Tilden, F. 1957. Interpreting our heritage. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Ulrich, R. S., U. Dimberg, and B. L. Driver. 1991. Psychophysiological indicators of leisure
benefits. In Driver, B. L., P. J. Brown, and G. L. Peterson (Eds), Benefits of Leisure. State
College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Uzzell, David. 1998. Planning for interpretive experiences. In Uzzell, D, and R. Ballantyne,
Contemporary Issues in Heritage and Environmental Interpretation. UK: Stationery Office
Books.
Virden, R. J., and R. C. Knopf. 1989. Activities, experiences, and environmental settings: a
case study of recreation opportunity spectrum relationships. Leisure Sciences, 11, 159-176.
Virden, R. J., and R. Schreyer. 1988. Recreation specialization as an indicator of environmental
preference. Environment and Behavior, 20, 721-739.
Waitt, Gordon. 2000. Consuming heritage: perceived historical authenticity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 27, 835-862.
Waller, J., and S. Lea. 1999. Seeking the real spain? Authenticity in motivation. Annals of
Tourism Research, 26, 110-129.
Wang, Ning. 1999. Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26, 349-370.
54
Appendix A: On-site Contact Sheet
Appomattox Court House National Historical Park
On-site Contact Sheet, 2001
Virginia Tech
Natural Resources Recreation
Department of Forestry
Blacksburg, VA 24061
55
Visitor Contact Sheet
Appomattox Court House National Historical Park
2001
1.
How many people were in your group today? (the number of people in your car, or the
number of people on your bus if you came as part of a tour group)
people
2.
What type of personal group were you with today? (Mark one)
 I came alone
 a family group
 a group of friends
 a family/friend group
3.
Was your personal group part of an organized group?
 Yes – If so, indicate kind of group (e.g., Scouts, church group, or tour
group):
No
4.
Was this trip your first visit to Appomattox Court House National Historical Park?
 Yes (If yes, go to Question 6)
 No (If no, continue on to Question 5)
5. Excluding this visit, how many times have you visited Appomattox Court House National
Historical Park?
____Number of times
 I don’t know
6.
How would you classify your own interest in the American Civil War? (Mark one)
 I have little or no interest in the Civil War.
 I am somewhat interested in the Civil War.
 I have quite a lot of interest in the Civil War.
 I have strong interest in the Civil War.
The Civil War is my favorite hobby. I spend more of my leisure time learning
about the Civil War than doing anything else.
7.
What did you most like about your park visit here today?
8.
What did you most dislike about your park visit here today?
9.
To what extent did you find the following to be a problem in the park today?
56
10.
Not a
problem
Small
problem
Moderate
problem
Big
problem
Dogs off-leash




Too many people at park ranger programs




Use of mechanized equipment in the historic
village




Noise from highway




Use of cell phones in the historic village




Too many people in the park




Traffic going too fast on the highway




Too much noise in historic village




Now—so that we can send you a follow-up survey—we need your name and address.
This information will be kept confidential. Your name and address will be used for no
purpose other than mailing the survey and follow-ups.
Name:
Street Address:
_
______
City, State:
Country (if outside U.S.A.):
11.
ZIP Code:
Thank you for your help.
57
PRIVACY ACT and PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT statement:
16 U.S.C. 1a-7 authorizes collection of this information. This information will be used by park
managers to better serve the public. Response to this request is voluntary. No action may be
taken against you for refusing to supply the information requested. Your name is requested for
follow-up mailing purposes only. When analysis of the questionnaire is completed, all name and
address files will be destroyed. Thus permanent data will be anonymous. Data collected through
visitor surveys may be disclosed to the Department of Justice when relevant to litigation or
anticipated litigation, or to appropriate Federal, State, local or foreign agencies responsible for
investigating or prosecuting a violation of law. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
Observations by Research Technician
Date: ___/___/___
Time:
Weather:
Sunny
Sun/Clouds
Cloudy
Rainy
Breezy
No Breeze
Humid
No humidity
Other:
Temperature:
Treatment:
Yes:
No
Mower
Circle one:
Yes
Unsure
Weedeater
In village
Maintenance Cart
Out of main village
58
Other (specify):_____
Appendix B: Mail-back survey
Appomattox Court House National Historical Park
Visitor Survey, 2001
Virginia Tech
Natural Resources Recreation
Department of Forestry
Blacksburg, VA 24061
59
OMB#___________
NPS ID#___________
Exp. Date___________
PRIVACY ACT and PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT statement:
16 U.S.C. 1a-7 authorizes collection of this information. This information will be used by park managers to better serve
the public. Response to this request is voluntary. No action may be taken against you for refusing to supply the
information requested. Your name is requested for follow-up mailing purposes only. When analysis of the questionnaire
is completed, all name and address files will be destroyed. Thus permanent data will be anonymous. Data collected
through visitor surveys may be disclosed to the Department of Justice when relevant to litigation or anticipated litigation,
or to appropriate Federal, State, local or foreign agencies responsible for investigating or prosecuting a violation of law.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Burden estimate statement: Public reporting for this form is estimated to average 25 minutes per response. Direct
comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this form to the Information Collection Clearance Officer,
WASO Administrative Program Center, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, Washington, D.C. 20240.
60
Description of Your Recent Visit to
Appomattox Court House National Historical Park
The following questions refer to your recent visit to Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. At the end
of your visit to the park, we contacted you and asked for your cooperation in this important survey.
1.
2.
3.
What activities did you participate in during your visit to Appomattox Court House National Historical
Park? (Check all that apply)
 hiked on trails outside the
 visited the Clover Hill Tavern
restored village
where Confederate paroles
were printed
 stopped at pulloffs along
highway to learn more about
 visited the county jail
the park story
 visited the site of General Lee's
Headquarters
 attended an educational
program by a uniformed park
 visited the site of General
ranger
Grant's Headquarters
 visited the bookstore
 purchased items at the bookstore
 visited the Visitor Center in the
 saw a slide program in the
courthouse
theater in the Visitor
Center/museum
 walked to the site of the
Chamberlain-Gordon Salute
 visited the Confederate
Cemetery along the highway
 rested on park benches
 read exhibits in the Visitor
 Accessed the soldier database
Center
at the bookstore
 attended a living history talk (a
 Hiked the history trail that
program given by a person in
connects spots where important
period clothing)
events occurred
 visited the McLean House
 visited the Meeks' general store
About how much time did you spend at Appomattox Court House National Historical Park during your
visit? (Mark one)
 less than 1 hour
 6-7 hours
 1-2 hours
 7-8 hours
 2-3 hours
 more than 8 hours on a single day
 3-4 hours
 two days
 4-5 hours
 three days
 5-6 hours
Would you like to have spent more time at the park on this visit?
 No
 Yes – If yes, indicate the reasons why your visit was shorter than you would have liked:
(Mark all that apply)
 Had to leave the park to get lunch
 Had to leave the park because of its closing hour
 Had to follow a travel schedule made earlier
 Was traveling with young children who were tired and/or restless
 Too much walking was required
 Weather conditions were unfavorable
 Others in my group wanted to leave
 My tour bus/organized group needed to leave
 Other reasons:
61
4.
Is it likely that you will return to the park for another visit? (Mark one)
 Yes, likely
 No, unlikely
 Unsure
5.
Some possible reasons why people visit Appomattox Court House NHP are listed below. Tell us how
important each reason was in your decision to visit Appomattox Court House NHP.
Not at all
important
Somewhat
important
Moderately
important
Very
important
Extremely
important
To teach my family about the Civil War
To get some exercise
To develop a sense of pride in my country
To do something with my family
To do something with my friends
To learn more about what happened there
To experience the peacefulness and serenity there
To relax physically
To re-live pleasant memories of previous visits to
the place
To gain a sense of self-pride
To meet and talk to new people
To commemorate our country's heroes
To learn about the Civil War
To learn what life was like for people in the mid1800s
To discover new things
To view the scenic beauty
To feel close to important people/events in our
history
It was just a convenient stop on my trip
To get away from the stress of everyday life
To attend a special event
To honor a relative who served there
Planning Your Recent Trip to
Appomattox Court House National Historical Park
6.
On this trip, what was the primary reason that you and your group visited the Appomattox-LynchburgFarmville area? (Mark one)
 Visit Appomattox Court House National Historical Park
 Visit other attractions in the area
 Visit friends or relatives in the area
 Visit the area for business reasons
 Other – please specify:
62
7.
People learn about Appomattox Court House National Historical Park as a place to visit in many ways. On
the list provided below, check the ways you learned about the park. (Check as many as apply)
 family or friends
 a teacher at school
 television/radio program
 internet
 newspaper story
 magazine story
 books
 highway sign/billboard
 Virginia Welcome Center
 tour company
 travel agent
 Chamber of Commerce information
 Virginia Tourism Board
 National Park Service brochure
 Other:
8.
Prior to your visit to Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, did you seek out information to
help you plan your visit?
 No – Go on to Question 10
 Yes – If yes, name up to three sources of information (some of the possible sources are
contained in Question 7) that you used in planning your visit:
1.
2.
3.
9.
What one source of information was most useful to planning your visit?
Expenditures on Your Trip to
Appomattox Court House National Historical Park
10.
Did you or any member of your family/group pay a park entrance fee at Appomattox Court House NHP?
 No (If no, go to question 12)
 Yes (If yes, go to question 11)
11.
How would you rate the appropriateness of the amount of the entrance fee you paid?
 Too low
 About right
Too high
63
12. Currently 80% of the entrance fee returns to the park to be used for maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of
park lands and facilities. Recognizing that the park uses the 80% of the fee for these purposes, would you be
willing to pay $1 per person as an entrance fee?
 No
 Yes
13.
On this trip, did you and your group travel to the nearby town of Appomattox?
 No
 Yes
14.
On this trip, did you and your group stay overnight away from home in the Appomattox-LynchburgFarmville area?
 No – Skip to Question 17
 Yes – Continue on to Question 15
15.
Please indicate the number of nights you and your group stayed in the Appomattox-LynchburgFarmville area away from home on this trip.
nights
16.
Indicate where you stayed in the Appomattox-Lynchburg-Farmville area: (Check as many as apply)
 With family and friends
 In a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast
 In a campground
 Other
17.
Which of the following activities did you take part in while you were in the Appomattox-LynchburgFarmville area? (Check as many as apply)
 Ate at a restaurant
 Went shopping
 Stopped at other sites along Lee's Retreat from Petersburg/Richmond
 Visited other historic sites and museums
 Went to other recreational attractions
 Other recreational activities: (please specify)
18.
During this visit to the park, please report your approximate expenditures in the Appomattox-LynchburgFarmville area. Residents of the Appomattox-Lynchburg-Farmville area should only include
expenditures that were directly related to this visit to the park.
Please note: If you traveled to the park as a member of a tour or bus group, list only your own
expenditures. If you came with family or friends (typically by car), please list the expenses of your group.
Please write "0" if you or your group spent no money in a given category.
a.
Inside the park: Please list your group's total expenditures (excluding the park entrance fee) on
purchases of such items as souvenirs, postcards, books, and other items.
$
64
b.
19.
Outside the park: Please list your total expenditures while in the Appomattox-LynchburgFarmville area on:
Lodging (include campground fees)
$
Food (restaurant and take-out expenses, groceries)
$
Gas and oil for your vehicle
$
Purchases such as souvenirs, film, books, sporting goods,
clothing, etc. (all other retail purchases)
$
How many people do the above expenses cover?
Adults (18 years or over)
Adolescents and children (under 18)
Your Involvement with National Park Service Historical Areas
20.
About how many times have you visited a National Park Service unit commemorating the Civil War?
21.
How would you classify your own interest in the American Civil War? (Mark one)
 I have little or no interest in the Civil War.
 I am somewhat interested in the Civil War.
 I have quite a lot of interest in the Civil War.
 I have strong interest in the Civil War.
 The Civil War is my favorite hobby. I spend more of my leisure time learning about
the Civil War than doing anything else.
Your Evaluation of Site Conditions and Program Services
22.
Overall, how would you rate your experience at Appomattox Court House National Historical Park?
(Circle a number)
1 --------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 --------- 5 --------- 6 --------- 7
Very Poor
Average
Very Good
23.
Overall, how crowded did you feel during your visit to Appomattox Court House National Historical Park?
(Circle a number)
1 --------- 2 --------- 3 --------- 4 --------- 5 --------- 6 --------- 7 --------- 8 --------- 9
Not at all
Slightly
Moderately
Extremely
Crowded
Crowded
Crowded
Crowded
65
24.
Below is a list of conditions and services at Appomattox Court House National Historical Park. First, rate
the importance of each item as it contributes to your experience during your park visit. Rate importance by
circling the appropriate number in the IMPORTANCE block. Then rate your satisfaction with each item
during your visit to Appomattox NHP. Rate satisfaction by circling the appropriate number or "Don't
Know/Does Not Apply” in the SATISFACTION block. You should have an importance rating and a
satisfaction rating for each item.
SATISFACTION
IMPORTANCE
(with your experience)
(to your experience)
Not at all
Extremely Don't
Not at all
Extremely
Satisfied
Satisfied Know/
Important
Important
Does Not
Apply
Park
Conditions
Speed of traffic on state
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
highway through park
Number of cars/trucks
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
on state highway
through park
Screening from sight
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
and noise of state
highway
Screening of park
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
maintenance buildings
from park visitors
Screening of sight and
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
sound of maintenance
and administrative
activities from park
visitors
Maintenance of trees
and vegetation in the
park
Condition of historic
structures in the village
Condition of historic
village roads
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
Facility
Conditions
Size of parking lot
Location of parking lot
with respect to the
historical village
Number and location of
park benches
Number and location of
trash cans
Number and location of
drinking fountains in
the park
66
SATISFACTION
(with your experience)
Not at all
Extremely Don't
Satisfied
Satisfied Know/
Does Not
Apply
IMPORTANCE
(to your experience)
Not at all
Extremely
Important
Important
Amount of litter along
walking paths in the
park
Amount of litter along
state highway through
the park
Number and location of
restroom facilities in
the park
Cleanliness of restroom
facilities
Number/miles of
hiking trails in the park
Condition of hiking
trails in the park
Safe highway exits and
entrances to park and
exhibit pulloffs
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
Information/Education
Services
Number of uniformed
ranger programs
available
Quality of uniformed
ranger programs given
Number of living
history (ranger in
period clothing)
programs available
Quality of living
history programs given
Quality of information
services provided at
contact desk in Visitor
Center
Quality of exhibits
contained in the Visitor
Center
Quality of the slide
programs in the Visitor
Center auditorium
Number of historic
buildings open to the
public
Quality of exhibits
provided at historic
buildings
67
SATISFACTION
(with your experience)
Not at all
Extremely Don't
Satisfied
Satisfied Know/
Does Not
Apply
IMPORTANCE
(to your experience)
Not at all
Extremely
Important
Important
Quality of information
provided at the
McLean House
Number of "pushbutton" audio programs
at key locations
throughout the park
Quality of "pushbutton" audio programs
at key locations
throughout the park
Number of outdoor
exhibits provided at
key locations
throughout the park
Quality of outdoor
exhibits provided at
key locations
throughout the park
Availability of park
brochures
Quality of park
brochures
Number of park
rangers stationed at key
locations throughout
the park
Variety of books and
other printed materials
at the bookstore
Availability of
information about
hiking trails outside the
historic village in the
park
25.
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
DK
For those park conditions, facilities or information/education services listed in Question 25 which were
important to you and about which you were dissatisfied during your visit, indicate how you would like the
situation improved.
a. Problem 1:
Your recommended solution:
b. Problem 2:
68
Your recommended solution:
c. Problem 3:
Your recommended solution:
26.
Did you ever feel conflict with other uses or users at Appomattox Court House National Historical Park?
 No
 Yes – If yes, describe the conflict: (Check all that apply)
 Too many other people in the Visitor Center
 Too many other people in the McLean House
 Too many other people in the Clover Hill Tavern
 Too many cars in the parking lot
 Too many people at the park ranger programs I attended
 Too many people at living history programs (i.e., programs given by
park staff in period clothing)
 Noisy people or groups at ranger programs
 Noisy people in historic buildings
 Noise from traffic on highway through park
 Traffic going too fast on highway through park
 Traffic tailgating me on highway through park
 Use of mechanized equipment by maintenance people in the historic village
 Use of cell phones in the historic village
 Dog off a leash in the park
 Other conflicts – Please specify:
69
Your Knowledge of the Park Story
In an effort to assess how well the park rangers/educators are communicating the park story, we would like to ask
you a few questions about what you learned during your park visit. Remember, we are not evaluating you; rather we
want this information so we can make recommendations on program improvements.
For all questions below, please give us the answer you believe to be correct. If you don't know the answer, give us
your best guess.
27.
The Appomattox Court House National Historical Park is managed by:
 the U.S. Forest Service
 Virginia State Parks
 the National Park Service
 the Greater Virginia Historical Society
 the Daughters of the Confederacy
28.
At Appomattox Court House, who surrendered to whom?
 General Grant surrendered his army to General Lee
 General Stonewall Jackson surrendered his army to General Grant
 General Lee surrendered his army to General George McClellan
 General Lee surrendered his army to General Grant
 General George Meade surrendered his army to General Lee
29.
The surrender meeting between General Lee and General Grant that occurred at Appomattox Court House
took place:
 in the courthouse
 in the McLean House
 in the Clover Hill Tavern
 at the site of General Grant's Headquarters
30.
Which of the following events was the most immediate cause of General Lee's decision to surrender at
Appomattox Court House?
 General Stonewall Jackson was killed and his men were worn out
 The Union army had captured train cars of food and blocked Lee's planned junction with
General Joe Johnston's army in North Carolina
 General Grant had blocked General Lee's efforts to retreat to Richmond and his supply
lines there
 General Phil Sheridan had blocked Lee's intended retreat to find food in the Shenandoah
Valley of Virginia
 President Jefferson Davis ordered General Lee to surrender
70
31.
How did the terms of surrender at Appomattox Court House shape the relationship between the North and
South after the war?
 Surrender terms led to continued guerilla warfare
 Surrender terms increased the antagonism between North and South
 Surrender terms resulted in the economic deprivation of the South
 Surrender terms helped to heal the division between the North and South
 Surrender terms had no effect upon relations between North and South after the war
32.
The capture of this Virginia city after a long siege by Grant's army led to the retreat of Lee's army toward
Appomattox Court House.
 Richmond
 Amelia Court House
 Petersburg
 Lynchburg
 Fredericksburg
33.
With the surrender at Appomattox Court House,
 the end of the Civil War was in sight
 the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia ceased to exist
 soldiers of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia became paroled prisoners of war
 All of the above
34.
The terms of surrender at Appomattox Court House called for the following:
 Confederate soldiers must pledge not to take up arms against the United States
 Any Confederate soldier who owned a horse in the army was allowed to take it home
with him
 Confederate officers were allowed to keep their swords and side arms
 Defeated Confederate soldiers were allowed to freely go home
 All of the above
35.
The manner in which the stacking of arms ceremony at Appomattox Court House was conducted indicated:
 respect by the victors for the vanquished
 ridicule by Union soldiers of Confederate soldiers
 disagreements among Union officers on the terms of the surrender
 disagreements among Confederate officers on the terms of the surrender
36.
These buildings in the village of Appomattox Court House were used as part of the surrender:
 Appomattox County jail and the Appomattox County courthouse
 Appomattox County courthouse and the Clover Hill Tavern
 the McLean House and the Appomattox County courthouse
 the McLean House and the Clover Hill Tavern
71
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Visitors
In order to make comparisons among the many kinds of visitors to Appomattox Court House National Historical
Park, we would like some general information about you. All information is voluntary and confidential, and will not
be identified with your name.
37.
Your present age:
38.
Are you
39.
What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Mark one)
 Elementary school
 Bachelor's degree or equivalent
 Some high school
 Some graduate work
 High school diploma
 Master's degree or equivalent
 Some college
 Ph.D., M.D., or equivalent
40.
What was your approximate total household income before taxes last year? (Mark one)
 Under $19,999
 $80,000—99,999
 $20,000—39,999
 $100,000—149,999
 $40,000—59,999
 $150,000—199,999
 $60,000—79,999
 $200,000 or more
 Male
years
or
 Female?
41.
Please indicate if you belong to a historical or conservation association. (Mark all that apply)
 National park protection association
 National historical preservation association
 Civil War site preservation association
 Civil War discussion group
 Civil War reenactment unit
 Descendents of Civil War veterans association
 Other historical/preservation association – Please specify:
42.
In what ethnicity and race would you place yourself?
a. Ethnicity: (check one)
 Hispanic or Latino
 Not Hispanic or Latino
b. Race: (check one or more races to indicate what you consider yourself to be)
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
White
Other (please specify)_________________________________________________________
Do not wish to answer
72
Do you have any other comments on ways to improve protection and management of
Appomattox Court House National Historical Park? Please respond in the space below.
Thank you Very Much for Your Help!
73